Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY

Windfall Tax

Mr. Prior: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the representations he has received from business leaders regarding the windfall tax. [1585]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Companies have been invited to make representations. While I intend to follow the normal procedure of treating such representations as I would others for the Budget—namely, as confidential between the parties—if companies wish to make their views public, that is a matter for them.

Mr. Prior: Will my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] Will the Chancellor confirm that in principle he is not in favour of retrospective taxation and that the one-off windfall tax is, indeed, one off?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful for the welcome that I received from the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Right hon.?"] The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the windfall levy and asks whether I support retrospective action. That is a question that he should ask of his colleagues who were in the House in the 1980s. Was not the first windfall levy imposed by a Conservative Government without ever being in a Conservative manifesto and without any advance consultation with the businesses affected? That windfall tax was imposed on the banks to deal with the costs of failure. We are imposing a windfall tax so that we can tackle a problem that the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members should be concerned about. Indeed, they should be ashamed that the previous Government did not act to tackle youth and long-term unemployment.

Mr. Stevenson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the notable exceptions of Sir lain Vallance from British Telecom and Conservative Members, there is tremendous public support for the windfall tax throughout the length and breadth of the country? Will my right hon. Friend therefore undertake to introduce the windfall tax at the earliest possible opportunity so that we can begin to get our young people back to work?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The greatest opponents of the windfall tax are not the utilities,

but the Conservative party. When a report today states that 500,000 long-term unemployed people in our country need proper skills and training to allow them to get back to work, people will be asking why the Conservative party is defending the utilities instead of the long-term unemployed.
A chairman of one of the utilities has reported that he regards the way in which we are going about the matter as reasonable and fair. Mr. James Rogers, co-owner of Midland Electricity, said only a few weeks ago that he was confident that Labour would apply the tax in a "fair and reasonable manner". He said:
a windfall tax would require us to deal with the sins of those before us. A one-off tax is not inconsistent with that.

Minimum Wage

Miss Kirkbride: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of a national minimum wage on the cost of public sector pay. [1586]

Mr. Gordon Brown: A minimum wage is in principle both fair and efficient. The impact of the minimum wage on public sector pay will depend on the level at which it is set. That is a matter for the Government to decide, when we have the advice of the Low Pay Commission, taking into account the wider effects on the economy.

Miss Kirkbride: Will the Chancellor confirm figures given by the Foreign Secretary, when he was shadow Secretary of State for Health, that a minimum wage of £4 per hour would cost the National Health Service an extra £500 million a year?

Mr. Brown: First, I welcome the hon. Lady to the House. She was a distinguished parliamentary correspondent and is now a Member of Parliament, having moved from a larger Conservative institution—The Daily Telegraph—to a smaller one, the parliamentary Conservative party.
The claim about the minimum wage was made repeatedly by the Conservative party throughout the general election campaign. There is no evidence for the statement other than the accusation made by the former Secretary of State for Health, who has continually suggested this. Given the traditions of Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) in supporting a minimum wage, it ill befits the Conservative party to deprive the people currently being exploited in the labour market of the dignity of a minimum wage. I believe that both sides of the House should accept the principle of a minimum wage. The application of it will be a matter for the Low Pay Commission, on which business—including small business—is represented. It is about time the Conservative party joined the modern world.

Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a popular demand throughout the country for a national minimum wage, which was best exemplified in the mandate that we received at the general election? On several occasions, my right hon. Friend and others on the Front Bench have said that they will consult, among others, people in the business fraternity. As several trade


unions have now passed resolutions for a minimum wage of £4 and over, including Unison at £4.42 yesterday, will my right hon. Friend guarantee that he will pay some attention not only to those in the business community but to the real wealth creators—the workers?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting the principle of a minimum wage. [Interruption.] I should have thought that Conservative Members would be listening to the electorate more by supporting the case for a minimum wage—[Interruption.]—than by defending huge salary rises in the privatised utilities. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must stop shouting.

Mr. Brown: The Opposition have learnt nothing from the past few weeks.
The specifics of the minimum wage will be dealt with by the Low Pay Commission, which will receive representations. Business and employees are represented on it, and small businesses are specifically guaranteed representation on it. That is the right way to set a minimum wage. I may also tell the Opposition that the experience in America is that a minimum wage is not only fair and efficient but helps to create jobs.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Chancellor was very courteous to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), but he quite deliberately avoided the point of her question. Will he accept that, unless the minimum wage is set at a level at which it makes absolutely no difference to any public sector pay, it will affect the cost of public services? If he sticks to his commitment not to raise public spending, the national health service and others will face a choice between cutting services or cutting jobs. Faced with the minimum wage, they will be able to do nothing else.

Mr. Brown: All those questions will be taken into account in setting the minimum wage. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is trying to re-establish "one nation" traditions in the Conservative party, that his predecessors as shadow Chancellors and as leaders supported the principle of a minimum wage, and until the 1980s there was all-party consensus about the need for wage protection through wages councils.
As for public sector costs, the Government are having to pay out huge sums in family credit to cover wage levels—set by employers—which are lower than they should be, instead of helping, as we should, people who are in poverty. The costs of family credit are escalating as a result of there not being a minimum wage and because employers are able to set wages lower than they should. It is about time that Conservatives started to show concern about the thousands of people earning £2 or less per hour and in some cases less than £1.50 per hour. The Conservative party had better soon restore its belief in "one nation" Conservatism.

Bank of England

Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what liaison arrangements he proposes

between the Treasury and the Bank of England to ensure effective management of demand to ensure the attainment of the Government's commitment to growth. [1587]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Government's central objectives are high and stable levels of growth and employment. Price stability is an essential foundation and the Government have introduced radical reforms to monetary policy arrangements to achieve this. It is the Government who set the objectives by setting the inflation target, and the Treasury and the Bank of England will continue to have regular liaison at all levels.

Mr. Mitchell: As the Bank of England's highest wisdom in any situation is to put up interest rates—it has already done so, despite the fact that real interest rates are at a record level and the pound is substantially overvalued—is not the Bank preparing the way for a manufacturing contraction, a rise in unemployment and a fall in growth next year? If we are to have an independent central bank, should not the Government at least appoint an expansionist Governor, and is the Minister aware that the shadow Chancellor might well be available for the job next week?

Mr. Darling: I think that the shadow Chancellor has another job in mind and would not want to rule himself out of that at this stage. My hon. Friend will accept that, if we are to achieve long-term sustainable growth, we must have low inflation and stability—something that Britain has not had for many years. We must avoid the situation that we have experienced in the past 18 years, when the Conservative Government delivered two of the deepest recessions since the war. If businesses and individuals are to be able to plan in the long term, we must have stability. My hon. Friend will have noticed that long-term interest rates have fallen since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's announcement three or four weeks ago.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Why does the Chancellor think it wise to separate the management of fiscal and monetary policy? Is it that he rejects the advice of John Maynard Keynes and is embracing the policies of Philip Snowden?

Mr. Darling: No. My right hon. Friend made it clear why we have taken the decision to give the Bank greater operational autonomy. We believe that it is important that interest rates are struck with a view to the long term. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who has been in the House—and in politics indirectly—for a long time, will agree that when Britain's performance is compared with equivalent competitor countries, our record for stability is not so good as it should be. We believe that the steps that we have taken to give the Bank of England greater operational autonomy in support of the Government's economic policy—an important point, as my right hon. Friend has made clear—are the way to achieve the stability that most people agree is essential.

Monetary Policy

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that the Government's monetary policy objectives are met. [1588]

Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that the Government's monetary policy objectives are met. [1589]

Mr. Gordon Brown: Last month I announced reforms which gave the Bank of England operational responsibility for setting interest rates. Today I have written to the Governor setting out the Bank's remit and how it will be held accountable for meeting its target.
To meet the Government's objectives of high levels of growth and employment, we need consistently low inflation. That is why I am today announcing a precise and rigorous framework to achieve the Government's inflation target of 2.5 per cent.
Our new long-term framework will ensure that, if inflation is 1 per cent. higher or lower than that target, an open letter will be sent by the Governor to the Chancellor so that the public are fully informed as to why the divergence has occurred and what steps will be taken in response. I have arranged to put the letter in the Library of the House.

Mrs. Campbell: The whole country will welcome the openness and firmness of my right hon. Friend's pursuit of the Government's objectives. Does he agree that such measures are essential if we are to create a climate of stability and confidence and break out of the cycle of boom-bust economics that was the Conservative Government's policy?

Mr. Brown: If we are to achieve our aims of high levels of growth and employment in the British economy and avoid the boom-bust economics that bedevilled people's lives during the period of Conservative Government, we need to set a target for consistently low inflation. The Conservative Government's inflation target was not met in any month in 1985 or 1986; average inflation under the Conservatives was 6.2 per cent. and in the 1990s it was 4 per cent. By setting our target of 2.5 per cent. and introducing the modern procedure whereby the Governor will write to the Chancellor if it is exceeded by more than 1 per cent., we are creating the most open and rigorous framework for monetary policy.

Mr. Sutcliffe: In 1979, manufacturing represented 30 per cent. of gross domestic product, but that is now down to less than 20 per cent. and thousands of jobs have been lost. This country is a net exporter of investment. What do the Government intend to do to improve the situation?

Mr. Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend. The reason why we have had, on average, high inflation and low growth over many years is lack of investment and lack of capacity in the economy. There is no long-run trade-off between inflation and growth. We need measures that will create a platform of stability on which industry and employees can build. It is precisely for those reasons that we have set in place a long-term framework for monetary

policy. If the Conservative party does not believe that I am right to make these reforms in the Bank of England, will it pledge to reverse them in its manifesto at the next election?

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Chancellor acknowledge that what he has just told the House and explained to the Governor of the Bank of England is a clear departure from the Labour party's manifesto commitment? Under the heading "No risks with inflation", it said:
We will match the current target for low and stable inflation of 2.5 per cent. or less.
By having a fixed 2.5 per cent. with, in effect, a margin of 1 per cent. either way, the Chancellor is setting a range of 1.5 per cent. to 3.5 per cent. Is that not the beginning of a serious relaxation of the commitment to bear down on inflation?

Mr. Brown: I have tightened the framework and made the procedure more rigorous and open. Under the Conservative Government, the range was 1 per cent. to 4.5 per cent. Under this Government, if inflation goes above 3.5 per cent., the Governor of the Bank of England will write a letter to the Chancellor explaining his views and whether the circumstances are unique. If they are repeated over a period of time, he will write again three months later.
Taken together, the reforms in the Bank of England, the setting up of the Monetary Policy Committee, the appointments that I have made to that committee, which have been widely welcomed, and this new open procedure will be welcomed in Britain and abroad. They are the best guarantee that we shall have the consistently low inflation that has eluded this country. That is the platform on which to build in order to achieve what everyone wants—high and stable levels of growth and employment.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is right. The Chancellor has just tried to slip in an important announcement on a day when the figures show that the Conservative Government hit the inflation target of 2.5 per cent. on the button as a result of our policies. How can the right hon. Gentleman deny that he is loosening the inflation target by moving from 2.5 per cent. or less to 2.5 per cent.? He has now introduced a new obligation on the Bank of England: he will hold it accountable if inflation is more than 1 per cent. below 2.5 per cent.
Those measures loosen the criteria for controlling inflation that the bank previously used. What is the reason for that? Is it a reaction to our criticism that the Chancellor's hasty decision to go to operational independence would lead to overkill? Does it not show that he is making policy on the hoof, and giving no stability or confidence to anyone?

Mr. Brown: It is interesting to note the right hon. and learned Gentleman's nostalgia for the old Ken and Eddie show. Instead of an ad hoc, personalised and often chaotic system, we have introduced rules based on principles and a rigorous approach. One week the shadow Chancellor argues that our approach is too rigorous, and the next he says that it is too soft. The difference between the Conservative party and the Labour party is that the


Conservative party met its inflation target in only 11 months out of 55. It did not meet its target at all in 1985 and 1986. Everyone knows that the only reason why the target was met last month was because of the fall in the exchange rate. We have established a framework that is open and will last. I believe that that is our best long-term chance of having consistently low inflation, and is the means by which to achieve high levels of growth and employment.

Private Finance Initiative

Ms Mountford: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new measures he is proposing to improve the private finance initiative. [1590]

The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): I immediately moved to ask Mr. Malcolm Bates to carry out a complete review of the private finance initiative process with a view to streamlining it, and I abolished the requirement for universal testing which gunged up the process under the Tories.

Ms Mountford: I welcome my hon. Friend's encouraging reply. Is he aware that the Conservative Government spent £30 million on consultants' fees, yet not one PFI hospital was built? Does he agree that the private finance initiative process is in urgent need of improvement?

Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we are giving it that improvement. I am pleased to say that the legislation that we have introduced to enable NHS trusts to become involved in PFI projects is making good progress in another place—or will do next week. I am also pleased to say that, immediately after Question Time, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will introduce a Bill to enable local government to enter into positive public-private sector partnerships for the benefit of the country.

Mr. Dafis: Will the Minister assure us that PFI companies will never have any responsibility for the hiring and firing of teachers, the provision of books and equipment and the delivery of the curriculum? Will he give a categorical assurance that those responsibilities will remain with local education authorities, schools and governors, where they belong?

Mr. Robinson: I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that none of those aspects features in any of the proposals for private sector investment in education that I have seen; nor would they be approved by me.

Mr. Derek Foster: Was not the former Chancellor guilty of extraordinary political incompetence, in that he screwed up the whole PFI process over a three-year period? Is it not now crucial for my hon. Friend to cut through the swathe of bureaucracy and put bulldozers on sites, particularly the site of Bishop Auckland hospital in my constituency?

Mr. Robinson: As my right hon. Friend will appreciate, I cannot give any undertaking in relation to the Bishop Auckland health trust, but I assure him that

we are moving to cut through the swathes of bureaucracy, as he so aptly describes them. I can tell him that the measures that we have taken via the review—such as getting rid of universal testing—and the legislation that we have introduced have done more to encourage the PFI in five weeks than the Tories did in five years.

Mr. Jack: I welcome the Paymaster General to his post. Can he confirm that purchasing services with the maximum risk transfer will remain the key objective for the private finance initiative? Can he also confirm that financial reporting standard FRS5 and standard of accounting practice SAP21 will remain the standards by which the viability of the PFI is judged?

Mr. Robinson: There the Opposition go again, getting bogged down in a whole lot of details and losing sight—[Interruption.] That is precisely why their bureaucratic, pettifogging approach has delivered no PFI deals on hospitals or local government. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of his record.

Mr. McAllion: Elsewhere in Europe, public investment which creates a tangible public asset does not count against the public sector borrowing requirement total. Will my hon. Friend therefore consider bringing Britain into step with the rest of Europe by changing to that form of public accounting? Will he bear it in mind that, as the markets already acquiesce in it throughout Europe, there is no reason to suppose that they would not acquiesce in this country as well? An added advantage would be that Scottish local authorities could raise private money to invest in remedying the housing crisis which afflicts so many people in my country.

Mr. Robinson: I hear what my hon. Friend says. We shall, of course, consider those matters, but it would be wrong for my hon. Friend to think that we had any immediate proposals for change.

Windfall Tax

Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the companies that will be liable for the windfall tax. [1591]

Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what time span he will use to assess the excess profits on which he plans to levy a windfall tax. [1595]

Mr. Swayne: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer over what time scale he will calculate the excess profits for the windfall tax. [1602]

Mr. Lansley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what measure of profits he will base his windfall tax. [1605]

Mr. Gordon Brown: I will announce details of the windfall levy in the forthcoming Budget.

Mr. Simpson: I am obliged to the Chancellor for that highly detailed answer.
Opposition Members would like some detailed information. May I return the Chancellor to the question of the windfall tax? Will he please confirm—yes or no—that it will be a one-off payment made in one year, and made only once?

Mr. Brown: Yes.

Mr. Nicholls: Despite what the Chancellor has said about the details being released in the Budget, he is surely aware that the Prime Minister admitted in the House yesterday that he knew which companies would be liable for the windfall tax. Bearing that in mind, will the Chancellor now say whether British Telecom is included? If it is included, will the right hon. Gentleman say in what years—if any—he regards British Telecom as having made an unfair and excessive profit as a return on capital?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman ought to be patient and wait until the Budget statement. I should remind him that, when the Conservatives introduced their windfall levy on the banks, they did not even announce the names of the companies in the Budget statement. Of course, the information will become available at the time of the Budget.
The hon. Gentleman asks about excess profits. The report of the Public Accounts Committee, which appeared in March just before the general election and was signed by many Conservative Members, states:
We note that in the five years after privatisation the water companies made profits totalling £7.4 billion, and the regional electricity companies profits of £8.7 billion, and that in both cases the profits were in excess of the level that the respective Directors General had judged it reasonable to allow for in the future.
That report to the House was signed by hon. Members in all parts of the House.

Mr. Swayne: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how he intends to raise a windfall tax from owners of capital who have passed their ownership to subsequent shareholders since the industries were privatised?

Mr. Brown: Unlike the Conservatives' windfall tax on the banks, we have made our determination to have the windfall levy known, not just for one or two years but over the past five years. People have been aware over that time of our intention to legislate in this way. Given what happened at the general election, I should have thought that Conservative Members would be better spending their time advancing the cause of the young and the long-term unemployed who will benefit from the measure than defending the excesses of the privatised utilities.

Mr. Lansley: As the Chancellor is proposing a one-off levy, how can he fund a continuing public expenditure requirement on welfare-to-work? His sums simply do not add up.

Mr. Brown: The one-off levy is to raise money for the Parliament; I made that clear before and during the general election campaign and I make it clear again. I know that the Conservative party is obsessively

interested in the needs of the privatised utilities, but it is about time that Conservatives got interested in the needs of the young unemployed.

Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when he quoted from the report of the Public Accounts Committee, he could have gone much further? In a series of reports since 1983, the Committee has shown that each of the utilities was sold at a price which was less than could or should have been obtained. Is he further aware that these matters can be looked at clearly in the reports of the PAC and that they show that the windfall tax is entirely due to the previous Government's actions?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has been Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for a long time. The report of March 1997, which deserves wide publicity, stated:
the replacement values of the assets of the water and sewerage companies are now estimated to be £138 billion, … sale proceeds were … £3.6 billion … we and our predecessors expressed concern that the shares in the companies have been underpriced.
If Conservative Members are not interested in the reports of the Public Accounts Committee, which are signed by Conservative Members, perhaps we should also look at the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which was published only a few days before the PAC report and refers to the dramatic profit increases of privatised utilities. It is about time the Conservative party came to terms with the fact that excess profits were made which were not justifiable, and that action in the public interest should now be taken.

Ms Hewitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as there are now 1 million fewer jobs than when the Leader of the Opposition first became Prime Minister, it is essential to introduce a windfall profits tax and use the revenue to help move 250,000 young people off welfare and into work?

Mr. Brown: As a result of Labour's windfall levy proposals, there are fewer jobs in the House for Conservative Members as well. I direct the House's attention to this morning's report which states that half a million of our young and long-term unemployed are without the basic training skills necessary for them to get jobs. It is a scandal that, over the past 18 years, when the Conservative party could have taken action, it failed to do so. This Government will take action to help both the young and the long-term unemployed.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, instead of the Opposition display of heart bleeding for the privatisation fat cats, it would be better to ask my right hon. Friend to list the constituencies in which young people who have long been out of work will benefit? Mine is one such constituency in which people are looking forward to the results of this action.

Mr. Brown: I agree entirely. In some constituencies, 30 per cent. of working-age households or families have no one earning a wage. They include young people, the long-term unemployed and single-parent families. It is


again a scandal that, on average in Britain, 20 per cent. of working-age families have no one in work. That situation should not be sustained on social or moral grounds, and it is bad for the economy. We are determined to take the action that the Conservatives have failed to take over the past 18 years.

Mr. MacShane: I invite my right hon. Friend to ignore the bleatings of those on the Conservative Benches, the friends of the fat cats, and pay attention to Yorkshire. Is he aware of the anger there at the profits made by those privatised monopolies? People want that tax to be used to create jobs, and there will be considerable anger if there is any diminution of the well-flagged intention of the Labour party, now in government, to use the tax fairly and justly.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When the country finds out that some of these water companies, despite six or seven years of privatisation and record profits, have paid not a penny in mainstream corporation tax, it will be annoyed. Ordinary men and women are paying 23p or 40p in the pound when many water companies have paid absolutely nothing. That is another reason why the action that we have had to take to help to tackle the problem of unemployment, because of the failure of the Conservative party, is both necessary and urgent.

Mr. William Ross: Given that the programme on which the Chancellor is going to expend this money is unlikely to be completed in the time scale that the windfall taxation is available, how does he intend to fund that expenditure in future years?

Mr. Brown: The one-off levy will be raised in the Budget and for a Parliament. The action that we take over the next few years will bring down unemployment, save on social security costs, and enable us to reduce social security bills so that we can meet our long-term objective, which is to transfer resources from social security and welfare to education and training. I want every young person to have the chance of proper training and education after the age of 16, so that we can have a nation at work, instead of many thousands of people on the dole.

VAT (Domestic Fuel)

Mrs. Organ: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy towards value added tax on domestic fuel. [1593]

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce VAT on domestic fuel. [1597]

Mr. Derek Twigg: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent representations he has received on the level of VAT on fuel. [1599]

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what plans he has to reduce VAT on domestic fuel. [1601]

Dawn Primarolo: The Government have a manifesto commitment to cut VAT on domestic fuel and power to 5 per cent., and we intend to keep that pledge.

Mrs. Organ: That is very good news. I am pleased to hear it. Members of the Lydney and district area pensioner 

forum will be particularly delighted with that excellent news. Does my hon. Friend remember the former Prime Minister making a pledge, before the 1992 election, that he would not put VAT on fuel? Does she also remember that, after the 1992 election, the Conservative party immediately broke that pledge and imposed VAT on fuel at 8 per cent? Will she confirm whether the Labour party will keep its election pledge on VAT? [Laughter.]

Dawn Primarolo: Madam Deputy Speaker—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Madam Speaker, my apologies. I assume that Opposition Members are shocked at my hon. Friend's suggestion that 'a Government should keep their election pledge. As she has said, the previous Government gave pledges and broke them. Our pledge will be kept and pensioner households will be the better for it, and warmer in winter.

Mr. Cunningham: Is my hon. Friend aware that many pensioners regard the reduction of VAT on fuel as important, given that they have been neglected for the past 18 years?

Dawn Primarolo: The Government's promise to reduce VAT on fuel, particularly for pensioners, demonstrates clearly that we are committed to a fairness agenda and to assisting pensioners. Instead of sniggering at the questions, perhaps Opposition Members would consider assisting the Government in meeting that target.

Mr. Twigg: Does my hon. Friend recall the statement made by the former Chancellor before the last election in which he said that the challenge was to increase VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent? Is my hon. Friend aware that that statement is of particular interest to my constituents who would pay significantly more for fuel under Conservative policies?

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is correct to remind the House that the Conservative Government imposed VAT on fuel and that the former Chancellor said that he was committed to raising VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent. The Opposition should now withdraw that commitment and support our target of reducing VAT to 5 per cent.

Mr. Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Conservative Government had not shamelessly broken their promises on VAT after the 1992 election, there might be a few more than 164 Conservative Members now?

Dawn Primarolo: Yes, I do agree. However, I believe that, even without that broken promise, there would be so few of them now as to put us in government.

Mr. Evans: Does the Minister agree that, when VAT on domestic fuel is reduced from 8 to 5 per cent., prices should come down? Does she agree also that, when the windfall tax on utilities is introduced, if any charge is passed on to consumers, prices from those utilities—particularly from the energy companies—will increase? Will the Minister give a guarantee that gas and electricity prices will not increase when the windfall tax is introduced? If she cannot do that, pensioners will be no better off, and Labour's election pledges will be revealed as a big con.

Dawn Primarolo: That is rich coming from an hon. Member who voted to impose VAT on fuel in the first


place. He did not care then whether extra charges would be passed on to pensioners and the low-paid. I assure him that a cut in VAT on fuel will mean a reduction in fuel prices for pensioners, the low-paid and everyone else.

Mr. Evans: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Madam Speaker: It was not the hon. Gentleman's question, so he cannot make that point.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does the Financial Secretary recall that, on 27 March last year in this place, she supported a reduction in the rate of VAT on energy-saving materials, describing it as a matter of justice, jobs and democracy? Does she still support that policy?

Dawn Primarolo: Under the Finance Act 1997, a review is being conducted—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The review is being conducted as a result of a Labour amendment to the legislation. We intend to pursue that review vigorously and report to the House. This Government keep their promises: the Conservatives did not.

Mr. Edward Davey: Can the hon. Lady confirm that the cut in VAT will benefit the poorest and the wealthiest in the land? What proposals does she have to target benefits on the real poorest in order to combat and cut fuel poverty?

Dawn Primarolo: The average household will benefit by £4.50 a quarter, and the poorest will benefit by even more as a proportion of their income. It is quite clear that our method is the most effective way of delivering that reduction. I impress upon the hon. Gentleman the fact that our commitment through the environmental task force and our strategy on energy efficiency will assist those households further and deliver real benefits to them instead of pious promises.

Mrs. Ewing: Does the hon. Lady remember back to 23 January 1995, when my party's amendment aimed at reducing VAT on domestic fuel to 5 per cent. was described as a cynical ploy no fewer than three times by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling)? It was stated that there was never any chance of reducing VAT on domestic fuel to 5 per cent. What has happened to change the Minister's mind? What realistic promise is she now holding out? We do not want to take a cynical attitude—we want to be convinced that there will be genuine reductions.

Dawn Primarolo: There was a cynical ploy, which put at risk the reduction to 8 per cent. that we had already secured on the Floor of the House, thereby stopping the Conservative Government pushing ahead with a rise in VAT to 17.5 per cent.
The hon. Lady asked a rather convoluted question. My answer to her is that the difference is that Labour is now in government and we shall deliver our promises.

City Regulation

Mr. Purchase: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about his proposed reforms to City regulation. [1594]

Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's announcement regarding reforming the regulatory system has been widely welcomed. It was the result of some four years' work and wide consultation. I am pleased to report that work is well in hand to take the Government's plans forward.

Mr. Purchase: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should condemn the previous dilatory authority that allowed Andrew Regan to be considered a fit person to run a bank, when only a few days later he was condemned by a High Court judge as being unfit and "clearly dishonest" in his dealings with the Co-operative Wholesale Society? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that it is time that there was a new authority that will ensure that people who want to run their businesses properly and decently can do so free from the influence of crooks?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the case of Andrew Regan, as I believe that it is now sub judice. On his general point, for many years there has been concern that the regulatory system has not been capable of cleaning up those parts of the industry that needed to be cleaned up. People who were guilty of quite serious misdemeanours—which reflected badly on the industry as a whole—were not properly dealt with.
Part of the objective in streamlining the structure and the nature of the regulatory system is to ensure that, where there are problems—for example, insider dealing—they can be dealt with quickly and effectively. That is why our proposals have been widely welcomed. For years, people could not understand why the Conservative Government would not act to clean up the City. The vast majority of people in the City are honest and their integrity is beyond reproach. It was they, as much as anyone else, who wanted action to be taken. Once again, this is an example of the Labour Government acting in an area where the Conservative Government did nothing for 18 years.

Departmental Expenditure

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will next announce changes to departmental public expenditure totals. [1596]

Mr. Darling: I explained to the House yesterday our policy regarding the comprehensive spending review. I also explained that, during the general election campaign and since, we have made it clear that Departments are expected to work within their departmental totals.

Mr. Hughes: Following yesterday's statement, I want to ask a question for the purpose of absolute clarification. If, for example, the Social Security Department and the Minister for Welfare Reform find savings in the social security budget and the Government bring down the social security bill between now and April of the year after next—as everybody hopes that they will—and if, in the


same period, the demand for the health service rises and the obvious cost of running the service is more than the figure that the Tory Government set—a figure to which the Labour Government are adhering—will there be any chance of money being transferred from a reduced social security demand to a clearly increased demand for the health service?

Mr. Darling: Unlike the Liberal party, this party and this Government have been very clear that, before we allocate and spend money, we must know where it will come from. The whole purpose of the comprehensive spending review process, which is now under way, is that my right hon. Friends examine their budgets and determine how they can be better spent. As I explained yesterday, we have already started the process in the health service and in education, and we intend to continue the process.

Mr. Canavan: If the Barnett formula is to be reviewed, will the Chief Secretary assure the House that any amended formula will ensure that public expenditure is distributed to the different parts of the United Kingdom on the basis not only of population but of genuine need, and that any additional revenue raised by the Scottish Parliament will be available for additional expenditure within Scotland?

Mr. Darling: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) yesterday, the Government will make our proposals on funding the Scottish Parliament in a White Paper, which will be published in time for the referendum campaign and the referendum itself. We have always made it clear that it is important that all parts of the United Kingdom should be funded on the basis of need and in an acceptable manner. That is our intention, and there are no difficulties about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) will see our proposals in the White Paper, and I am sure that he will think that they are very satisfactory.

Sir Norman Fowler: In spite of that review, will the Chief Secretary confirm that the current arrangements for exemptions from paying prescription charges will remain unchanged?

Mr. Darling: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy for those in need, because the House will remember the review that he conducted in the 1980s. I made it absolutely clear yesterday that all aspects of Government expenditure must be reviewed; there is no question about that. As he will well know, to exclude any part of expenditure would mean that the review cannot be effective. Conservative Members should remember that, unlike them, the Labour party is committed not only to the principles underpinning the national health service but to fairness—which is something that the Conservative party cannot even begin to understand.

Mr. Tipping: Will the Chief Secretary ensure that any review of departmental spending is collective and that there is a careful analysis of issues that are dealt with by more than one Department? If he does so, will there not be a real opportunity of ensuring that hard issues—such

as poverty, adding value to people and helping communities to aspire to a new future—have a chance of being successfully addressed?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is absolutely essential that the Government examine the entire range of services, not least health services, for which we are responsible. There is, for example, a relationship between poverty and health and between quality of primary care and subsequent need for hospital acute care. I can assure my hon. Friend not only that will there be reviews across Departments but that the entire process will be reviewed by the Public Expenditure Committee. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I will supervise that process.

Special Advisers

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on the appointment of special advisers to Her Majesty's Treasury. [1598]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government's policy on the appointment of special advisers was agreed by the Prime Minister, on 19 May, in the attachment to his letter to Cabinet colleagues. A copy of that letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Colvin: I thank the hon. Lady for that reply. Will she acknowledge two matters that should make the Chancellor's job rather easier? First, he has inherited a booming economy from the outgoing Conservative Government. Secondly, he has relinquished one of his principal responsibilities—deciding monetary policy—to the Bank of England. Why is it therefore necessary for him to increase the number of his special advisers by one third?

Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because the reality is that we have found UK public expenditure to be a mess. The state of public expenditure prompted yesterday's announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. Moreover, I detect a whiff of hypocrisy in the position adopted by Conservative Members on special advisers. Since 1974, special advisers have been serving well the United Kingdom and Governments from both parties.
As for changes in monetary policy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his statement of 20 May, made it quite clear that changes in setting the inflation level are related to achieving the Government's other targets—to ensure that we have the right parameters, a stable economy, economic growth and fairness. Ensuring that we have a Government who govern for the many and not for the few is our priority.

Mr. Clapham: Will the my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that the special advisers to the Treasury read the study recently completed by Sheffield university's energy study group, which shows that there is a need for a change in the tax regime in the United Kingdom continental shelf? The study also shows that had we, for example, been matching the Norwegian system, the revenue


per barrel between 1984 and 1995 would have been an additional £5.5 billion. As we move to a second hydrocarbon boom—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is miles off the point. We are dealing with the appointment of special advisers. I believe that Mr. Radice wished to ask a question.

Mr. Radice: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is sheer humbug to talk about politicising the civil service when a few additional special advisers are appointed and when in fact it was Mrs. Thatcher, when she was at No. 10, who suborned the integrity of career civil servants by making them her political playthings—so much so that they were not accepted back into the civil service?

Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because there is clear evidence of humbug among the Opposition. Indeed, I well recall that, under the previous Government, it took the intervention of the Cabinet Secretary to ensure that the then Secretary of State for Scotland did not use the Government press office to disseminate Conservative party propaganda. The appointment of special advisers is specifically to guarantee that the civil service does not become involved in party political issues.

Mr. Green: The hon. Lady talks about humbug in relation to the politicisation of the civil service. Will she comment on reports that the Prime Minister has offered Mrs. Rachel Lomax, a career civil servant, the job of a special adviser as head of his policy unit? Will she further comment on the fact that the lady concerned, who is an intelligent civil servant, has very sensibly turned down the job because she does not want to be tainted by it?

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman is indulging in speculation. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's policy unit is a matter for him but, in the few weeks that we have been in government, we have had reason to believe that the civil servants serving the Government are all intelligent, and we have every confidence in them.

Give As You Earn

Dr. Godman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to raise the annual sum of money an employed person may donate to charities by way of the give-as-you-earn scheme; and what has been the cost of the scheme to public funds since its inception. [1600]

Dawn Primarolo: The payroll giving scheme has cost more than £30 million. The limit for donations under the scheme is a matter for the Chancellor in his Budget.

Dr. Godman: The upper limit of £1,200 per annum was set some time ago. Does my hon. Friend agree that it should be raised to, say, £2,000 per annum, as donors and charities would welcome such an increase and the latter would be able to plan their projects systematically? Incidentally, has my hon. Friend any idea how many hon. Members pay the maximum £1,200 per annum?

Dawn Primarolo: I do not have any idea how many hon. Members are contributing the maximum. There are

more than 10 million people in pay-as-you-earn schemes who could give to charities. It is up to the charities to ensure that those people are donating. Any increase in the allowance is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does the Minister share my concern about the funding of charities? If so, will she urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to change advance corporation tax? Would she like to explain why it would have a negative impact on charities, and undertake to talk to the charities about any such proposals?

Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor heard that and will take it as a 
Budget representation. All hon. Members will want to ensure that charities are properly dealt with in the tax system.

Financial Regulation

18. Mr. Goggins: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to improve financial regulation. [16031

Mr. Darling: I explained a few moments ago the Government's policy on the reform of the regulatory system. We are making good progress towards the reforms that we want to achieve.

Mr. Goggins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he agree to keep the House fully informed about future developments on the Securities and Investments Board? Will he also ensure the maximum possible protection for pensioners and savers?

Mr. Darling: I can certainly give the House those assurances. Not only will we keep the House informed through parliamentary questions, but the legislation required to implement our reforms on the Bank of England's role in monetary policy decisions and its supervisory role will be introduced in the near future. I am sure that there will be many hours of debate on the Floor of the House and in Committee to enable hon. Members to contribute their opinions in the normal way.

Mr. Willetts: Will the Chief Secretary confirm that the most difficult questions will be those relating to whether a bank in difficulty will be allowed to fail or whether the risks to the system as a whole mean that it should be assisted? Will he clarify whether such decisions will be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the new financial regulator or the Governor of the Bank of England?

Mr. Darling: The position will be made clear in legislation. The hon. Gentleman is right. When there are problems with banks, the public and the banking system need to know where responsibility lies. The Bank of England is the lender of last resort, but with problems of the magnitude of the collapse of Barings bank—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was at the Treasury at the time, but I may be wrong and he may be well aware of the arrangements—the Chancellor has always been consulted. That happened with Barings and with Johnson Matthey in the 1980s.

UK Beef Exports

Sir Teddy Taylor: (by private notice): To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implications of the decision of the European Union veterinary committee to reject proposals designed to relax the ban on UK beef exports.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for this opportunity to inform the House of developments.
The terms of the Florence agreement for lifting the export ban on British beef provided for a number of steps, including on meat from animals in certified herds. It envisaged that the proposals would be first considered by the Commission's scientific advisory committee before the Commission made changes to the European Union legislation.
On 25 February this year, the previous United Kingdom Government submitted their proposals for a certified herds scheme to the Commission, which passed them to the Scientific Veterinary Committee for an opinion. The committee delivered its opinion yesterday and expressed concern on five points relating to the identification of animals, the tracing of animals on farms and of their meat through the slaughterhouse, and the amount of veterinary supervision involved. The committee suggested that changes needed to be made to the UK proposals before they would be acceptable.
It is disappointing that the Scientific Veterinary Committee has asked for further clarification when it did not take up our offer to send an expert to explain our proposals at an earlier stage in the process. We are not surprised that it has some criticisms. We are already considering carefully the points made and will give a detailed technical response very soon. Our officials are in Brussels today, and discussions will continue over the next few days.
We recognise that all consumers will be anxious for full assurances, in line with sound scientific assessments of risk. We shall press for the removal of the ban where those assurances can be given. I shall keep the House fully informed of developments.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister accept that, as the Government's endeavour to resolve the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis by making an offer of providing independent advice was rejected, despite the new positive approach and the lack of confrontation, we have simply had another slap in the face based on wholly irrational arguments, such as the definition of a herd? Has not the time come for the Government to impose restrictions, under article 36, on imports from nations whose standards of safety are lower than ours?
Will the Minister endeavour to persuade his colleagues in Europe that the real problem, which will have to be overcome somehow, discussed and faced up to, is the appalling, horrendous over-production of beef in Europe, which costs the taxpayer a fortune, which it is estimated will produce about 2 million tonnes of surplus by the end of the decade and which produces no benefit to anyone? Does the Minister accept that, despite all his hard work

and despite the Government's endeavours for non-confrontation and friendship, they have simply had another slap in the face? They should do something now.

Dr. Cunningham: There are three substantive points in what the hon. Gentleman has very fairly put to me. I never anticipated that I would be able to undo in five weeks all the disastrous misjudgments on the issue by the previous Government over the past five years. The proposals were, after all, submitted by the hon. Gentleman's own Government and not by me. I decided, however, that it was proper and sensible to proceed with those proposals because of the consequences of the beef ban for the whole of the United Kingdom and for our beef industry. Whatever progress I can make, I shall endeavour to make on the basis of those and new proposals that I am formulating.
I do not regard this as a slap in the face. I have had two perfectly rational conversations today with Commissioner Bonino and Commissioner Fischler about very quickly trying to resolve the outstanding questions. There is no row going on. It is perfectly reasonable for the independent Scientific Veterinary Committee—this is not a Commission decision—to raise some questions about these important matters. We shall do our best to answer those questions quickly and fully.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about the beef regime in Europe. Of course I agree with him about that. Most, if not all, parties in the House recognise that we need fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy, including the beef regime.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend accept that as British consumers have accepted that beef from pedigree herds is perfectly safe and are increasingly buying it, it would be criminally unjust if farmers who have pedigree herds, in England and in other parts of the United Kingdom, were made to pay for a point of view that is not scientifically based and is totally unacceptable? To push people into bankruptcy on that basis would be totally unacceptable.

Dr. Cunningham: It is very difficult to argue that the opinions of an independent scientific committee of experts are not scientifically based. Those people were appointed to advise the Commission exactly because of their independent scientific status. Of course I agree with my hon. Friend that we should do everything possible to ensure that, where we can develop an effective certified herds scheme, our own beef producers are able to take advantage of it.
I also agree with my hon. Friend on the point about consumers being given the same levels of protection. It is exactly for that reason that I announced last week that I was not prepared to countenance indefinitely imports of beef to Britain from countries where BSE existed, unless that beef was subject to the same stringent safeguards as beef produced in this country.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the Minister accept that his response will be a grave disappointment to the House and to beef farmers, including myself? Is he aware of the current state of the beef market and of the desperate anxiety felt by many farmers? Has he naught to offer for their comfort today? Does he not feel, in all humility,


just a little chastened by the revelation that warm words and soundbites will not in themselves get us all we want in Europe?
Does the Minister accept that the certified herds scheme, developed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), was well founded and based on the best scientific advice? In spite of that setback, will the Minister press on with the selective cull scheme?
Does the Minister also accept from the Conservative Benches the assurance that we shall support any reasonable supplementary measures that he now proposes, including those related to maternal transmission, which are based on scientific studies initiated during our time in office? In particular, will he clarify the position on the implications of any redefinition of cohort groups for revisits to herds for which the selective cull has already been completed?
Finally, will the Minister bear it in mind that, although the House will accept measures based on scientific judgment and taken in good faith to lift the export ban, we cannot be forced beyond that? Does he agree that the ban has never had any sound legal basis? Will he confirm that he will vigorously prosecute our current legal case in the European Court?

Dr. Cunningham: In view of the diatribe at the start of the hon. Gentleman's question, his use of the word "humility" in respect of the Government is rather misplaced. A little humility on the Conservative Benches would not come amiss, given their Government's responsibility for the scandal of the development of BSE in Britain and its consequences for all our beef producers and dairy farmers. The hon. Gentleman is ill placed to champion the rights of farmers, given the abysmal record of the Conservative Government and of his right hon. and hon. Friends on the issue.
Of course we are pressing ahead with the selective cull, the over-30-months scheme and other such matters, but we would have been better placed had the Conservative Government started the selective cull when they should have, rather than delaying it until the early weeks of this year. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will recall the former Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary returning from Florence and promising that, as a result of their negotiations, the beef ban would be lifted by November 1996. What a fraud that was.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Is not the real problem that the certified herds scheme that the previous Government submitted to the Commission was inherently flawed? Will my right hon. Friend produce proposals as soon as possible to satisfy scientists, consumers and farmers alike?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend. Some weaknesses in the scheme have been identified and officials from MAFF are today discussing how we can improve the scheme and get it accepted. I want to persevere with the scheme. It is basically a good idea to have certified herds qualifying to export their beef. I see no sense in abandoning the scheme simply because one or two problems have been identified. We shall press ahead with trying to resolve them.
As I said, I have spoken with both the Commissioners involved today. They want to help us resolve the difficulties and I am hopeful that we can make rapid progress. We do so in the interests first and foremost of the beef farmers and beef producers, secondly, in the interests of British consumers and thirdly, in the interests of our economy. We want to end the beef ban.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Minister accept that beef farmers throughout Scotland, Wales and England are now facing serious problems as a cumulative result of the dire consequences of mismanagement over that period, mostly under Conservative rule—[Interruption.] It was 13 and a half months. Does the Minister accept that the critical issue now is not whether we can open the export door again, but whether we can achieve some harmonisation of standards throughout the single market so that the certified herds scheme, specified bovine offals and all the other controls to which the British public are entitled to look as an assurance of public safety are applied to all exports throughout the so-called single market? Is it not about time for real action to be taken to deal with imports from countries elsewhere in the European Union and outside it, which cannot reach those standards?
Is it not a fact that the previous Government took no action whatever to deal with the problem, no doubt because they were only too pleased that their friends in the food processing industry—including the burger chains—were able to import beef of low standard at low cost? Is it not critical now to assure the British people that all the beef that is available in Britain is of the same standard as that on which we insist here?

Dr. Cunningham: I accept no responsibility on the part of the Government for the circumstances that prevail in the British beef industry today. The hon. Gentleman said that they were mostly the responsibility of the previous Administration, but they are totally the responsibility of the previous Administration. There is no doubt about that.
I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's specific points. Of course I want to see the same rules applied on specified risk materials across the European Union as a whole. That was the purpose of the announcement that I made last week on imports of beef to Britain. I have raised the matter with the Commissioners and with the president of the Agriculture Council, Mr. Van Aartsen. I have made it clear to them that I expect them to pursue the proposals which, to be fair, Franz Fischler has retabled for the Commission's consideration.
As I am a reasonable person in these matters, I have said that I shall give them until 22 July—the date of the next Agriculture Council—to make a decision on that point. If they have not made a decision by then, the draft orders to take action against beef imports that have not been given the same rigorous treatment as our own will be tabled. Those draft orders are on my desk now.

Mr. George Stevenson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while he makes and continues to make vigorous efforts to have the export ban lifted, it would be wrong for him to make the same mistake that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) made when he announced in the House that the ban would be lifted on 20 November last year? Does he also agree that one of the problems identified by


the committee is that of identifying animals both on and off the farm? Will he assure the House that the Government are making every effort to ensure that that problem is tackled in earnest?

Dr. Cunningham: I certainly want to avoid all the mistakes made by the previous Government in dealing with the European Union on this and other issues. There is little point in the aggressive, confrontational approach suggested by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), when we start not from a position of strength but from a position of considerable weakness as a result of the failures and the record of the previous Conservative Government. So I certainly do not intend to set any dates or make any claims for an early resolution to a complex and deep-seated series of problems that we have to resolve—first, the problems on specified risk materials, secondly, the problems of confidence in the consumer market, and, last but not least, the lack of political credibility on this issue with our European partners. None of the mistakes of the previous Government will be repeated by me.
As for my hon. Friend's last point about farm visits, thanks to the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, we have rapidly accelerated work on the selective cull scheme, to the point at which more than 9,000 farm visits have been made. All those animals have to be traced and identified, and the farmers have to co-operate in that process. It is not an easy or uncomplicated process. We want to press on with it as quickly as we can, and we are doing so.

Mr. Tom King: Beef farmers face a serious situation at present. The Minister recently confirmed his awareness of concern about the standard of much of the imported beef coming into Britain. The Ministry has helpfully published excellent results from recent inspections of slaughterhouses, which confirm the high standard of the beef that is now produced in Britain. Are not those factors categorical grounds on which the Minister could approach McDonald's and the other major burger companies? If the lower-quality beef used in burgers were purchased in Britain, it would significantly support the beef price. How far is the right hon. Gentleman getting in his discussions with the burger companies?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his measured and effective intervention. He is right to say that we forecast imports this year of some 160,000 metric tonnes of beef into Britain—between 20 and 25 per cent. of the beef consumed in the UK market. That is a considerable import penetration of the domestic market. I assure him that I have already approached the major importers. I am asking them not only for their advice on the matter, but whether they would like to talk to me about how we might help them to change their minds.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend knows the appalling cost to the nation, to farmers and to all in the meat industry of the previous Government's appalling mishandling of the matter. Can he give the current figures for BSE incidence in herds? Will he make

it absolutely clear that it is the policy of his Department not to dodge the issues as the previous Government did, but to solve the problem as soon as possible?

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right. The costs are horrendous: £1.5 billion and rising to the British taxpayer. Let me add that the previous Administration did not make sufficient provision in public expenditure to cover all the costs—just another of the little ticking time bombs that we have found in the public finances since the general election. The costs to the meat industry have also been catastrophic: some £800 million. The cost to farmers is almost incalculable. The financial consequences alone are truly horrendous.
The incidence of BSE, at the latest count on 4 June—my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I now have a weekly update of the figures—showed that there had been—[Hon. Members: "Reading".] Of course I am reading; I want to get the figure right. The figures showed that there had been 169,349 cases of BSE, which is currently running at 100 cases a week. That is a much reduced rate, but it is still much higher than in any other similarly affected country.

Mr. William Thompson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is very bad news for Northern Ireland, which exports a greater percentage of its meat than does any other part of United Kingdom? I understand that, while the overall scheme was rejected, favourable comments were made about its application—albeit with certain amendments—to Northern Ireland because of enhanced computer traceability in that part of the United Kingdom. Will the Minister insist that those amendments are made quickly and, when they are made, that the scheme be accepted for Northern Ireland, so that we can get rid of the iniquitous beef ban?

Dr. Cunningham: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the critical importance of the matter to Northern Ireland's economy. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and his colleagues came to impress that point on me only a few days ago. We had a long conversation about the impact of BSE on farmers in Northern Ireland and the considerable significance of agriculture generally to Northern Ireland's economy: 75 per cent. of beef produced there used to be exported and cannot be now.
I am very well aware of the force of the hon. Gentleman's case, but he is wrong to describe the scheme as having been rejected. The scheme has not been rejected; questions have been asked about its particulars. The questions have not even been considered by the Commissioners yet. That is why I spoke on the telephone today to both Commissioners, to ask them to help us to answer the questions expeditiously and effectively so that the scheme can be accepted.
I want to make the best progress I can in dealing with those matters, certainly in the interests of farmers in Northern Ireland, but also in the interests of farmers in the United Kingdom as a whole. I acknowledge that there has been particularly good progress in Northern Ireland on registration, the selective cull and other matters necessary to fulfil the terms of the Florence agreement. If


I had not recognised that, the hon. Member for Upper Bann and his colleagues would have left me in no doubt about it.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: In line with the suggestions of the Scientific Veterinary Committee, will my right hon. Friend consider adopting a two-part strategy? First, as the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) said, he should press for an immediate lifting of the ban in Northern Ireland because of traceability. Secondly, for mainland Britain, he should work towards lifting restrictions on all cattle born after 1 August 1996, at which date we can guarantee that there was no contaminated beef. That would mean effectively a progressive lifting of the ban as those cattle reached 30 months.

Dr. Cunningham: I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that, if I could get results simply by insisting that the ban be lifted in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, I would so insist. It is not quite that simple. As there are questions about the certified herds scheme, which apply equally to Northern Ireland as to other parts of the United Kingdom, I must answer those questions to the advantage of Northern Ireland as well as other parts of the UK. As I have said repeatedly this afternoon, I want to do that as quickly and effectively as I can. The advantage of the certified herds scheme being approved is that it would apply to the whole of the UK, including Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend's important second point was about a birth date after which we could export beef from anywhere in the UK. I have discussed that again with Commissioners Fischler and Bonino. I raised the matter with them in May and I discussed it again with Mr. Fischler today on the telephone. We are formulating new proposals along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, and I shall keep the House informed of progress.

Mr. John Swinney: It is rather difficult to get to the nub of the Secretary of State's statement. On the one hand, he is telling us that there are one or two problems with the scheme. On the other, he is saying that he is not giving us a definitive time scale within which the ban can be lifted. Will the Secretary of State give us some definitive guidance on how swift progress will be to have the beef ban lifted? Will he consider the proposals that have long been on the table, which have been endorsed by the European Union as an opportunity for the ban to be lifted in Scotland, as a priority within the United Kingdom?

Dr. Cunningham: I do not want to fall out with anyone in the Chamber during my first appearance at the Dispatch Box in my present role in this Parliament. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I am not a Secretary of State but the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Be that as it may, I am not being contradictory when I say that I want to resolve the problems as quickly as I can, but that I am not going to name a date. It would be unrealistic and misleading to do so. I have no idea how long it will take to resolve the problems. After all, the previous Prime Minister promised the nation that the entire ban would be lifted by November 1996. Here we are in June 1997 and none of the ban has been lifted.
It would be foolish in the extreme for me to start speculating about dates. I am certainly not going to raise false hopes. Perhaps that will disappoint the hon.
Gentleman and his constituents, but I recognise the nature and scale of the problems in Scotland because many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies, like the hon. Gentleman, have left me in no doubt about the importance of the matter to Scotland. I shall work as effectively and quickly as I can to resolve the problems, but I shall not speculate on how long that will take.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: In addition to the terms of the Florence agreement, has my right hon. Friend any further proposals that will lead to the lifting of the beef ban? In particular, does he recognise that his recent comments about tightening import controls in the United Kingdom, unless common and improved standards of hygiene in slaughterhouses are introduced throughout Europe, have been widely welcomed by British beef producers?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are looking at other possibilities for action that would help in the lifting of the ban, either in part or in whole. I have already referred to one: a birth date after which any beef produced anywhere in the United Kingdom would be eligible for export. We have to deal with the outstanding matter of the scientific evidence on maternal transmission, and we need to bring forward proposals to the Commission on that important issue. We are working on those. I shall keep the House informed on that matter.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments about the statement that I made last week. I have been quite emphatic about that statement. I want to see a European Union-wide approach to the removal of specified risk materials, but in the absence of such an approach, we shall act on our own account.

Mr. John Greenway: May I offer support to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said today about the need for the same hygiene standards and for the risk materials to be removed, having pressed that point in the House for 15 months? He will also know that I have always taken the view that this should be not a matter of dispute across the Floor of the House, but a matter between the House and this country, and the rest of the European Union.
Notwithstanding the short time that the right hon. Gentleman has been in his post, on which I congratulate him, does he not feel that, in a sense, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said at the beginning of his private notice question, all that has happened is that he has again been given a slap in the face? Indeed, it is not just him, but the British beef industry. The ban is unjustified and must be lifted without delay.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman started by being supportive and congratulatory, and I thank him for that, but it is no good him wagging his finger at me and saying, "The ban must be lifted without delay." I do not recall him saying that in the previous Parliament, when all sorts of false promises were being made from the Government Dispatch Box by Conservative Ministers. The hon. Gentleman is rational enough to know that there is just no hope of the ban being lifted without further delay. That is unrealistic. Much as I agree with his general point that we are doing everything that is reasonable in the circumstances, it is simply not going to happen that way.
Before I sit down, I had better apologise to the House, because I have already given some information that was not accurate. I said earlier, in answer to a question, that officials had made more than 9,000 farm visits. That is not true. We have identified more than 9,000 farm visits to be made. At the moment, 3,600 of the farms have been visited. I apologise to the House for that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I shall end this exchange. Hon. Members will find that there may very soon be a debate on these matters, and I shall remember them.

Business of the House

Mr. Alastair Goodlad: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 16 JUNE—Consideration in Committee of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 17 JUNE—Second Reading of the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 18 JUNE—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Completion of remaining stages of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.
THURSDAY 19 JUNE—For three hours, there will be a debate on the common agricultural policy, on a Government motion. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 20 JUNE—Debate on the Child Support Agency on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 23 JUNE—Second Reading of the Local Government (Contracts) Bill.
Later that week, I expect to find time for an Opposition day.
Government legislation will also be taken that week, probably the Plant Varieties Bill.
I also hope to find time for the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.
At this stage, I am unable to give the House the precise details of the days on which these items will be taken. There will be discussions in the usual way.
FRIDAY 27 JUNE—Debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

[Thursday 19 June—Relevant European Community Documents: 6627/97, relating to agricultural prices for 1997/98 and related measures; 9550/96, relating to a support system for producers of arable crops; 9876/96, relating to ewe and suckler cow premium schemes; 6112/97, relating to agri-monetary adjustment; 5617/97, relating to the Court of Auditors Special Report No. 1/97.]

Mr. Goodlad: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving us the business for next week and the partial business for the week after.
Now that the date of the Budget has been announced, when will the Finance Bill be published, when will the Second Reading debate be held and how long will be allowed for the Committee stage?
What progress is being made in setting up the Select Committees? Is the right hon. Lady aware that we have consistently stressed the importance of the speedy establishment of those Committees and that the House is becoming concerned at the lack of movement, particularly in respect of the departmental Select Committees and the


Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which will clearly have work to do, not least in respect of the allegations about the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar)? When does the right hon. Lady expect a statement to be made to the House on the circumstances surrounding the hon. Gentleman?
Will the right hon. Lady ensure that the Prime Minister comes to the House to make a statement following his discussions with the German Chancellor about the future of the Eurofighter aircraft project in view of its great importance for jobs in Britain, particularly in Lancashire?
Is the right hon. Lady aware of the current speculation about the Government's plans concerning prescription charges? Can she confirm that the Government do not intend to make pensioners pay those charges? If not, when will a statement be made to the House detailing the Government's intentions?
In the light of the change to Government policy in respect of primary-age children and the assisted places scheme, which the Prime Minister announced during questions yesterday, will the right hon. Lady please arrange for a statement to be made to the House clarifying the position and setting out exactly the Government's intentions in the matter for the information of those families involved?
Finally, in the light of the unsatisfactory reply given by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the private notice question of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), will she confirm that, either during or before next week's debate on the common agricultural policy, the Minister will update the House on the prospects for a lifting of the ban on British beef exports and banning the import of European beef?

Mrs. Taylor: I can confirm that the Finance Bill should be ready shortly after my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made his Budget statement, and we shall have discussions through the usual channels about the amount of time that is required for the Bill's various stages.
I have said on several occasions from the Dispatch Box that I, too, want to see the Select Committees established as quickly as possible. We have made some progress in terms of establishing the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons and one or two other important Committees. I attach particular importance to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and discussions are going on through the usual channels and with the minority parties on that matter.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the Labour party acted quickly with regard to the allegations against my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland involved the police in investigations into that matter. As I have said before, if the allegations come within Sir Gordon Downey's remit, obviously consideration could be given to his inquiring into the matter. But it is important that we all recognise that the matter is with the police, who may or may not take action.
The right hon. Gentleman asked again about the future of the Eurofighter, on which I made some comments last week. I repeat that the Government are fully committed to the Eurofighter programme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence met the German Defence Minister in Bonn last week to discuss that specific project.
The German Defence Minister made it clear that he thought that Germany needed the Eurofighter, and we hope that progress can be made on the matter.
Prescription charges were dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when he said yesterday that there were prescription anomalies. He was referring to the fact that one group of illnesses is covered by prescription exemptions whereas others are not. We are not making any commitment on that: it will be part of any departmental review.
No further statements on the assisted places scheme are planned for next week. The comments that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made yesterday were very clear. For a member of the previous Government to complain about debates on BSE is a cheek, and I have no plans to provide time for such a debate.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will my right hon. Friend examine early-day motion 112?

[That this House notes that a year after the appointment of General McCaffrey as America's Drug Czar, statistics prove that teenage drug abuse is soaring, reports of drug-related corruption have multiplied and the cities of New York, Philadelphia and Los Angeles have suffered startling jumps in use and overdoses; observes that the Drug Czar has been called a 'drugs nanny and a disaster'; and urges the Government not to repeat America's mistakes by creating a Drug Czar but to set up a Royal Commission to consider alternative policies.]

Sadly, the drug tsar appointed in America 16 months ago has not fulfilled the promise of his office. Since he was appointed, drug use, drug deaths and drug corruption have increased at a remarkable rate. We should consider carefully all the possible solutions to deal with the ever-increasing toll of drug abuse and drug deaths. A royal commission should investigate the use of legal and illegal drugs before we take any new policy initiatives that may end in failure, as they have in America.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend's views on this subject are well known, and I do not share them. If we appoint a drug tsar—I am willing to consider different titles for that position—we will ensure greater co-ordination in our campaign against drug use. Only this week, the Government announced that many projects up and down the country will receive drug challenge fund money. Those schemes are accepted by the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Employment, the Home Office and the police as a good way of learning how best to tackle this difficult problem. My hon. Friend does not share our views and has a different approach, so I am afraid that I cannot agree with him.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House tell us when we shall have an opportunity to debate early-day motion 103?

[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1997 (S.L, 1997, No. 852), dated 17th March 1997, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th March, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.]

The motion incorporates our prayer to reverse the damaging changes that the Conservative Government made to housing benefit and council tax benefit. It has been endorsed by many Labour Members in early-day motion 88


Will the right hon. Lady address the problem of time for debates on Europe? She will recall that on Monday we had a comparatively short debate on Europe instead of the usual two-day debate, with the result that many hon. Members, particularly Labour Members, were not called.
I note that the business announced for next week allows for only a truncated debate on the common agricultural policy. That is contrary to the precedent of a full-day debate. Will the right hon. Lady guarantee that we will have a full, two-day debate on a Government motion after the Amsterdam summit so that we can accommodate all the views in the House, notably the many and varied views of Conservative Members, which may not be properly represented in a one-day debate?
Now that the right hon. Lady can give us an idea of the time scale after the Budget for consideration of the Finance Bill, will she tell us when she expects the summer recess to be?

Mrs. Taylor: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first point about the problem of housing benefits and young people, we all recognise the difficulties that have been caused by the changes made by the previous Government. Unfortunately, the savings that were to come from those changes form part of the expenditure plans that we inherited. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said yesterday, the Government are reviewing all the options. We shall have to see what can be done in this field, as in many others, and I do not want to pre-empt any decision that may be made.
Discussions took place through the usual channels about the debate on Europe next Thursday, and it was thought that three hours would be for the convenience of the House on this occasion. I am sure that hon. Members will want to participate in that debate.
I cannot guarantee the two-day debate that the hon. Gentleman wants following the Amsterdam summit, but I have said that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House about the outcome. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that if he wants an extra two days' debate, that makes it even more unlikely that I shall be able to say anything in the near future in answer to his question about the summer recess.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Could my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made about the continuing crisis in the coal mining industry, which is now privately owned? We hear stories of the evil monster, the Tory Budge, sacking workers because they refuse to work two consecutive 11-hour shifts, and for no other reason. At the same time, he is going around the old pit villages recruiting people to work two 11-hour shifts at the weekend, although some of those people work from Monday to Friday in other occupations. That is the scandal of a privatised industry—a dangerous industry, given that people are being required to work for so many hours.

Mrs. Taylor: I cannot guarantee my hon. Friend a statement, but I think that the safety implications could be

significant, and I shall undertake to draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: May I ask the Leader of the House again whether we can have an urgent debate on the Department for Education and Employment, on what resources it has and on whether it is using them effectively?
Yet another week has passed, and the Department has made no decision on the age of transfer of pupils in Buckinghamshire. That is causing a great deal of anxiety to parents, pupils and schools, and is already beginning to disrupt children's education. I think that we need a debate so that we can see how the Department has time to do its job. It appears to have time to appoint more political advisers; why does it not have time to make a decision on Buckinghamshire children?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Lady was a Minister. She will know that, when decisions of that kind are made, many factors must be taken into account, including all the representations that are made. [Interruption.] She may say that the decision could have been made before the election, but that does not mean that the new Ministers will automatically agree with her conclusion.
I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Education and Employment have been very active, in an extremely positive way. Many parents throughout the country will welcome the statements that we have heard emphasising the need to improve children's education from the earliest stage, and about extra literacy classes in the summer. I shall, of course, undertake to ensure that my right hon. and hon. Friends know of the hon. Lady's concern about the delay, but I do not think that she is right to say that they have been inactive. I think that they have been working very successfully.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will my right hon. Friend grant me one favour that I failed to gain from her distinguished and honourable predecessor, who is no longer with us? I refer to a debate on prisons. At present, we not only have a floating prison ship; we have overcrowding in prisons, there are not enough places for female prisoners and there are days when there are lock-outs because of the lack of space. There is a good deal to discuss, and the Select Committee on Home Affairs will not be established for some time. The matter is urgent, and it should be debated before the summer is out.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has put his request in a measured way, looking to the longer term rather than just to next week. I am sure that, given his ingenuity, he will find time to raise prison issues, probably on more than one occasion. Home Office questions are coming up shortly, and no doubt my hon. Friend will be able to explore other ways of raising those issues.

Mr. Edward Garnier: The right hon. Lady will understand the disappointment of my farming constituents that she has been able to find only three hours for a debate next Thursday on the common agricultural policy. Will she undertake to find more time for a debate on agriculture before we break for the recess? She will understand the acute anxieties felt by farmers in my


constituency—be they beef, dairy or arable farmers—about the current agricultural crisis. I urge her to find a full day on which we can debate this serious issue.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said a few moments ago. My right hon. Friend recognises the anxiety that the crisis has caused, but he also recognises the origins of the problem and the fact that it was the previous Government who made it even more difficult for us to get the settlement that we want.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked for a debate of more than three hours next week. The time for the debate was agreed through the usual channels. If he wants extra time to debate this or any other matter, he will note that I have said that I hope to find time for an Opposition day in the week after next.

Mr. Chris Pond: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for an urgent debate on the decision by the new Conservative-controlled Kent county council to freeze all capital spending, including that on schools? That will mean that children in my constituency and others in Kent will be taught in quite unsatisfactory conditions and, of course, that runs counter to the Government's intention of improving quality in schools and in education generally.

Mrs. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that I will not be able to find time next week for such a debate. Of course, it is open to him to pursue other means of raising the issue, such as in a Wednesday morning debate. I was not aware of the difficulties that he mentions in Kent county council, but I shall make sure that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Deputy Prime Minister are aware of his concerns.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the right hon. Lady ensure that questions that are put down for written answer on a named day are answered promptly at 3.30 pm? I draw her attention to questions that are down for written answer today. Questions 53 to 56 are pertinent to the extraordinary assault on the freedom of the press by the Lord Chancellor at a press conference on Friday. As I speak, those questions have not been answered.

Mrs. Taylor: Obviously, I was not aware that the questions had not been answered, but I shall make inquiries.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the Leader of the House try to find extra time to discuss the current review of departmental spending and to debate particularly the problems of computers in recognising the year 2000? Each Department was set a target of a full audit by October of this year and most of those should now be well under way. The system should be corrected by December 1998, but the likely cost to the Government of putting this right appears to be rising, to a figure in excess of £1 billion or possibly even several billion. This is not an inter-party problem: it is a recognition that the Government and all private-sector firms face potential catastrophe unless they get their act together quickly.

Mrs. Taylor: I understand the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It has been described as the

millennium time bomb and I know that people in the public and private sectors have been looking at ways to deal with it. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in his Department have been spending a considerable amount of time on it. At the moment, it is thought that the public sector may be ahead of the private sector. I do not think that I can find time for a debate on the matter, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has heard the hon. Gentleman and that, if he wishes to raise further points, the Minister will be willing to listen.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the right hon. Lady's hopeful suggestion that we may have a debate on Northern Ireland appropriations in two weeks. Yesterday and today, there has been concern throughout the House about the Barnett formula and the possibility of changes. Would it be possible to have a statement this week on that issue, so that the House can be clear that any review will deal not merely with numbers, but, rather, with need?

Mrs. Taylor: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that, for many years, the Barnett formula has formed the basis for many allocation decisions. Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury yesterday put that in the context of the overall spending review that the Government are conducting. He was not announcing specific plans for any change.

Mr. Robert Key: May I repeat my request for an urgent debate on defence, to give the Government the opportunity to clarify the confusion over the future of the Eurofighter and Trident projects?
The Prime Minister said during the general election campaign that Eurofighter was imperative for this country's defence, we have seen Ministers trotting off to Germany, and we have been told again today that Eurofighter is safe; yet, only yesterday, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, during the statement on the spending review, whether the Government were looking at spending on Trident and Eurofighter. We were told that the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence had announced a defence review, which would take six months to complete, but that the spending review would take 12 months to complete and did not exempt Trident and Eurofighter. That confusion is serious for our defence forces and for the defence of this country.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of what has been said. I told him earlier that, only this week, the Secretary of State for Defence had had discussions with his German counterpart. The German Cabinet will meet on 11 July to discuss the federal budget. Apparently, the German Defence Minister is in favour of Eurofighter. There is no confusion whatever in the Government's attitude. Defence Question Time takes place on Monday and if the hon. Gentleman wants to take the matter further, he can do so.

Mr. Paul Burstow: Can the Leader of the House make time available for a statement next week—indeed, sooner if possible—on the industrial action that is about to take place on Connex South Central


services, which will cause misery tomorrow to many of my constituents and to many other commuters trying to get into London? Will she draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions early-day motion 104 so that he can reply to it in detail?

[That this House notes with concern the forthcoming industrial action amongst drivers employed by Connex South-Central; believes this will cause considerable inconvenience to members of the public, disrupt the economy and undermine the efforts being made to raise confidence in rail travel and effect a transfer from road to rail; recognises the right both of Connex to seek changes to working practices and of ASLEF to resist reductions in safety; and calls upon the two sides to renew their efforts to resolve the dispute as a matter of urgency, on ASLEF to postpone any industrial action pending these further talks taking place, and on the Government to put pressure on both sides to reach a sensible and amicable agreement]

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may know that the Government's attitude is that this is a matter for the employer and employees, and not for the Government. Therefore, I do not anticipate a statement at this time. There is a real danger of inconvenience tomorrow, but he will have to recognise that it is a matter for those parties directly concerned.

Mr. Norman Baker: May I reinforce the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow)? Is the Leader of the House aware that, today, I had 17 pages of cancellations sent through by Connex South Central? Is she also aware that I have spoken to Lew Adams, general secretary of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen—ASLEF—and to the managing director of Connex South Central, both of whom say that they are willing to sit down tomorrow and talk? However, no date has been fixed for talks, trains are being cancelled and commuters in my constituency will be greatly inconvenienced by the strike. Will she have a word with the Minister of Transport, to knock some heads together, because both sides appear willing to talk?

Mrs. Taylor: if both sides were willing to talk constructively, we would not be facing a dispute. I recognise the problems that could be experienced if the dispute goes ahead; and, from what the hon. Gentleman is saying, the people involved might be able to find a way out.

Points of Order

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Madam Speaker, may I raise a point of order, of which I have given you notice? Sir Gordon Downey, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, is a much-respected servant of the House, but he is reported as having given an interview to Counsel magazine recently, in which he is quoted as saying:
There is quite a strong case for further consideration as to whether or not we would be better off with professional politicians without outside interests.
The House will recognise that such a view is highly controversial and would give rise, if proposed, to serious constitutional issues, which are matters for the House itself or for Parliament. An expression of view on the matter by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards would appear, if—I repeat, if—he has been correctly reported, to sit most uneasily with his quasi-judicial functions. Would you be kind enough to make inquiries and to inform the House of the true position and of any guidance to officers that you think may be necessary?

Madam Speaker: I have noted the concern expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I have seen the comments made by Sir Gordon Downey and I have been in touch with him. I shall make certain that he is aware of the concerns expressed in the exchanges that have taken place on this point of order today.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your opinion on a new and highly undesirable change in the procedures of the House. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was asked 19 questions, which he was expected to answer in half an hour. During business questions last week, the shadow Leader of the House asked 21 questions and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had only a minute or two in which to answer them. The shadow Leader of the House asked 16 questions today.
We are asked to relate business questions to the business of the House next week or in future and to request statements or debates. Of the 21 questions that the shadow Leader of the House asked last week, only seven sought statements or referred to new business of the House. Of his 16 questions today, only four sought statements or debates in the House. It is totally unreasonable to expect my right hon. Friend to provide adequate and intelligent answers to all of those questions. She is dealing with the business of the House: she is not a contestant on "Mastermind".

Madam Speaker: Obviously the hon. Gentleman brought his abacus to business questions. I cannot say that I have been counting, but I shall examine the record. I answered some 10 questions in about seven minutes in my state rooms this morning—I wish that Ministers could do as well.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek clarification arising from your reply to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). I assume that Sir Gordon Downey is in the same position as any other
Officer of the House. While I may or may not agree with his observations, Sir Gordon performs a particular job for the House and he is entitled to express his point of view. It would be rather unfortunate if we were to try to gag him and prevent him from expressing his views.
Sir Gordon's role is to try to maintain the standards in public life that the public would like to see observed. While some may disagree with his comments—I do not believe that we could have 650 full-time politicians in the House—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an observation rather than raising a point of order. In answer to the proper question that he asked at the beginning of his remarks, Sir Gordon Downey is a senior Officer of the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You have said that you will express concern to Gordon Downey arising from the point of order raised by the Tory ex-Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lye11). Perhaps you could also inform him that the ex-Attorney-General is one of 164 Conservative Members. He is a lawyer and he probably wants another job now that his pay has been docked.
The arithmetic tells us that there are 418 Members on the Government side, almost all of whom will not be involved in consultancies. It is conceivable that Gordon Downey did the arithmetic as well, saw what happened in the general election, and decided that that is the way we should go: one Member of Parliament, one job. The Tories are squealing because they do not have as much money as they had before.

Madam Speaker: As I have said, I intend to make the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards aware of the exchanges that have taken place regarding this matter.

BILLS PRESENTED

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CONTRACTS)

Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Mr. Secretary Davies, Ms Hilary Armstrong, Mr. Nick Raynsford and Mr. Geoffrey Hoon, presented a Bill to make provision about the powers of local authorities (including probation committees and the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District) to enter into contracts; and to enable expenditure of local authorities making administrative arrangements for magistrates' courts to be treated for some purposes as not being capital expenditure: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 5].

PLANT VARIETIES

Dr. John Cunningham, supported by Mrs. Secretary Beckett, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Secretary Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. Secretary Davies and Mr. Jeff Rooker, presented a Bill to make provision about rights in relation to plant varieties; to make provision about the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal; to extend the time limit for institution of proceedings for contravention of seeds regulations; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 6].

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (Matters relating exclusively to Wales)),
That the Matter of the Government's programme for Wales, being a Matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Graham Allen.]

Question agreed to.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I beg to move,
That this House, pursuant to section 9(4) of the Transport and Works Act 1992 ("the Act") as applied by section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, approves the following proposals, contained in an application for an Order submitted under section 6 of the Act by Eurostar (UK) Limited on 23rd January 1997 and entitled The Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Stratford Station and Subsidiary Works) Order, for
(1) The construction, maintenance and operation of—
(i) in the London Borough of Hackney and Newham, a station at Stratford for international and domestic services on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link with vehicular parking and other facilities in connection therewith; railways comprising down and up lines to serve international and domestic platforms at that station; and a station access road off Waterden Road, including a bridge over the River Lea;
(ii) in the London Borough of Hackney, a realignment and improvement of Waterden Road;
(iii) in the London Borough of Newham, a subway at the existing suburban Stratford station with a pedestrian link to the new station; and
(iv) in the London Boroughs of Camden and Islington, railways near St. Pancras to provide access between the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and the West Coast Main Line by means of a connection to the North London Line.
(2) The authorisation of works ancillary to the above-mentioned works, including the stopping-up of York Way in the London Boroughs of Camden and Islington, the making of a means of access to and from that road and interference with waterways.
(3) The compulsory acquisition or use of land or rights in land for the intended works; compensation for this and for the injurious affection of land; and the compulsory use of subsoil.

It may be helpful if I open the debate with a brief explanation of the statutory process and the purpose of the order. Orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992—the TWA—have replaced private Bills as the means by which new railways, tramways and certain other works projects are normally authorised. Section 9 of the TWA gives Parliament a continuing and important role in relation to schemes that the Secretary of State believes are of national significance by making the approval of each House a precondition to the making of an order under the TWA.
If a resolution approving such proposals is passed in both this House and another place, the application will go forward for more detailed consideration at a public inquiry. It would then be for the Secretary of State to decide, in the light of the inspector's report, whether to authorise the proposals in question by making a TWA order. The Secretary of State is not bound so to do. Until he makes his decision, he must keep an open mind on the merits of the proposals. Nevertheless, in reaching that decision, he would take careful note of Parliament's view.
The section 9 procedure has been used only once before, for the ill-fated central railway project which was roundly rejected by the House last summer. I trust that there will be a more positive outcome today.
The use of this procedure in connection with the proposed Stratford station and the twin-track link to the north London and west coast main lines arises because

section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 provides specifically for these proposals, in any application for a TWA order, to be referred to Parliament under the section 9 procedure. That special provision was inserted in the CTRL Act with all-party support because the House wished to have an opportunity to give the proposals its formal support in principle. The Secretary of State is not required to form an opinion on their national significance.
The motion accordingly seeks the approval of the House for the proposals. It is phrased in this way, rather than in neutral terms, to enable us to secure a conclusive outcome in a single debate. If the House were to reject the motion, the scheme would, in effect, be dead, as the order could not be made. If the House passed the resolution—as, in this case, the Government recommend—the project would be considered in another place.

Mr. William O'Brien: My hon. Friend referred to the link to the west coast main line. I make a plea to her and to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider a link to the east coast main line—I appreciate that it cannot be done under this order—so that we have a service to all the regions through orders similar to this one. I hope that Ministers will keep in mind the fact that we need the same services on the east coast as are proposed for the west coast.

Ms Jackson: I am sure that my hon. Friend understands that his proposal cannot be debated this afternoon, because it is not a matter covered in the order. However, I shall ensure that his strong representations on behalf of his constituents are brought to the attention of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
As I was saying, only if the application is approved in both Houses can it proceed to a more detailed examination at a public inquiry.
I come now to the specific proposals that the House is asked to approve. The detailed case for the proposals will, with your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, be presented by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). I shall confine my comments to a short summary of the proposals and the representations received on them, and I shall set out the Government's position. A copy of the complete application, including plans and sections of the proposed works and the environmental statement, has been available for inspection in the Library since the application was made in January.
The application for the order was made by Eurostar (UK) Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of London and Continental Railways Ltd., which successfully bid for the contract to build the channel tunnel rail link. The works contained in the draft order were not included in the CTRL Act because the decision in principle to proceed with them came too late for inclusion in the Bill without seriously prejudicing its progress.
The proposed station at Stratford will provide a new intermediate stop for international and domestic services using the rail link. It will enable passengers to make connections with other railways services at Stratford, such as the London Underground Central and Jubilee lines, the docklands light railway and the north London and great eastern lines. The station will therefore give passengers a wider choice of access to international and domestic


services on the CTRL and make an important contribution to the Government's declared aim of establishing a more integrated public transport system.
The development of the station is expected to create sizeable regeneration benefits for the Stratford area, which is itself a focal point for development at the western end of the Thames gateway. Taking into account the scope for redevelopment of adjoining lands, including former railway lands, and the wider development opportunities in the lower Lea valley and the royal docks, the longer-term extra employment prospects for the area could be substantial.
The other main proposal in Eurostar's application that is closely associated with the Stratford station is for a twin-track connection from the CTRL to the north London and west coast main lines. Such a connection will enable trains to and from the channel tunnel to bypass St. Pancras station and to transfer directly to the north London and west coast main lines, thereby reducing journey times between mainland Europe and Scotland, the north and the midlands. Stratford station would be used as the London stop on those through trains. The twin-track connection would replace the single track provided in the 1996 Act and increase operational flexibility and reliability.

Mr. David Chidgey: Can the Minister confirm that the promoter's intention is still to complete all the works that she mentioned without further recourse to public funds?

Ms Jackson: It is my understanding, given the contract into which the operator has entered with the Government, that there will be no further call on public funds.

Dr. John Marek: Will the Minister expand on that answer? What will happen if the firm goes into liquidation? Do Ministers have any contingency plans to ensure that works, once they are half begun, are completed, so that the project comes to fruition?

Ms Jackson: With respect to my hon. Friend, he has asked a hypothetical question. I repeat: the operator entered into a commercial, binding contract with the Government. We do not foresee any reason for it to break that contract.
The Department received 59 objections to or representations about the proposed works, copies of which have been placed in the Library. I will, however, summarise the main points raised.
There is concern that the station will cause excessive traffic on the surrounding road network and that inadequate provision is proposed for public transport and cyclists at the station. There is concern also about possible adverse environmental effects on the Bully Point nature reserve, on the River Lea, and about the loss without replacement of garden allotments, recreational amenities and metropolitan open land in the Lea valley, near Stratford.
Some statutory undertakers and local businesses have objected to the adverse effects of the proposed compulsory acquisition powers associated with the works or to the effects of the works on access to businesses by road and rail. Concerns have been expressed also about the adequacy of the design of the proposed pedestrian link at Stratford station. More generally, a few objectors have questioned the demand for a station at Stratford.
The London boroughs of Hackney and Islington have challenged the adequacy of the environmental statement in its assessment of some of the local environmental effects—particularly impacts on local traffic and transport—and the implications of operating additional channel tunnel services for local services on the north London line. Finally, the London borough of Newham has sought certain changes to the proposed planning conditions.
What is the Government's assessment of the proposals? If Parliament approves the resolutions, the Secretary of State would have a duty to decide whether the order should be made. His mind must remain open on that decision, and, in making it, he must specifically have regard to the inspector's report, after detailed consideration of the proposals and objections to them at a public inquiry. The issue for the House to decide today is whether, in principle, the proposals are worthy of proceeding to that more detailed examination. The Government have no doubt that they are worthy.
The objectors have raised a number of issues concerning the perceived adverse local impacts of the scheme on traffic levels, the environment and businesses. Those are matters that, quite properly, must be considered carefully before the order is determined. It will be open to the Secretary of State to amend provisions in the draft order or to change the planning conditions attaching to any deemed planning permission after considering any recommendations by the inquiry inspector. It would be for the promoter of the order to defend the adequacy of the environmental statement and to provide more information for the inquiry, if so requested by the inspector.
The Secretary of State is under a statutory obligation to consider the environmental statement in determining whether to make the order. In the Government's view, the objections do not raise fundamental issues that might dent our confidence in the proposals' overall merits. We are satisfied that the grounds of the objections to the application are of a nature that would be best considered at an inquiry.
We think that the proposed works are desirable in principle. They have the potential to create significant transport benefits by encouraging greater railway use, especially for travel to Europe. A new station at Stratford would also help to achieve a more integrated transport system in London. For local communities in the east Thames corridor, the works offer a real prospect of substantial benefits, with more jobs and much-needed urban regeneration.
The Government therefore have no hesitation in inviting the House to pass the order.

Sir George Young: The Opposition welcome the order. We give it our full support, and we are grateful to the Minister for her explanation of it.
Debates on the channel tunnel rail link and on Stratford international station have, on the whole, been friendly occasions, involving a small and familiar cast—most of whom I see in the Chamber today, although their places seem to have changed a bit. We will especially miss one player—the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks)—who took part in every debate on the matter. To use


a draughts analogy, however, he has reached the end of the board and helped himself to a crown. Understandably, he will not speak in today's debate.
I am delighted that the new Government are proceeding with the previous Government's policy on construction of a high-speed link, thereby harnessing the energy of the private sector in a major private finance initiative, routing the line through east London to achieve the regeneration benefits mentioned by the Minister and making it easier and quicker for passengers to travel from France to regions other than the south-east. I was delighted to hear that the Government will support the order under the Transport and Works Act 1992, thereby making necessary amendments to the original legislation.
The Minister described the effects of the measure, but I have a few questions. The briefing on the order states that construction of the station at Stratford will create jobs and "act as a catalyst" for east London. She mentioned those effects in her speech. At some point, however, I should like to know how the Government plan to reinforce her comments by proceeding with our Thames gateway strategy, which proposes more privately funded river crossings. Our strategy would build on proposals for a Stratford station by further improving transport infrastructure in east London and unlocking some of the large sites on either side of the river.
On road links, which are mentioned in the order, the Minister recently answered a parliamentary question from me, stating:
no new starts on national schemes are planned for this financial year."—[Official Report, 9 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 318.]
I should like confirmation that her Department will play its part in building the roads that are necessary not only to make the station a success but to proceed with the regeneration of east London.
There are 56 objections to the works—mostly from organisations preserving their negotiating position—which I know that London and Continental Railways would like to resolve amicably. I should like to know whether any agencies or quangos for which the Minister's Department has responsibility is among the objectors.
In schedule 2, the order also refers to "compulsory purchase and compensation". The Minister will know that two reviews on compensation were in progress at the end of the previous Parliament. One of those—its members were the ombudsman and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Select Committee—was narrowly and specifically focused on the relatively small number of households that would be affected by the channel tunnel rail link. It would be helpful if at some point, although not necessarily today, we knew what was happening with that review.
There was also a much broader review of compensation generally, involving a number of Government Departments. Again, it would be helpful to have at some point a timetable and details of the Government's approach to that overall review of compensation.
The Minister referred to one of the objections, which related to the provisions for buses and taxis. The Department's briefing note states that there is provision for 2,000 cars. I am sure that there will also be provision for buses and taxis, as the hon. Lady spoke about an

integrated transport policy. I very much hope that the promoter will make it possible for people who arrive by bus and taxi to do so as conveniently as those who arrive by car.
I hope that the Minister will not think it churlish if I say that LCR must be allowed to make profits to carry out and pay for the works that we are debating so that it can deliver its share of the bargain. It has entered into substantial commitments, and needs to make a profit to service the equity that it has to raise. I therefore hope that we will be spared some of the more violent rhetoric that we sometimes hear from Labour Members about utilities that make a profit. The private finance initiative can work only if there is also a private profit initiative.
The TWA order is part of the revival of the railway, pioneered by the previous Government. Along with the Heathrow express, Thameslink 2000, the docklands light railway extension to Lewisham, the Croydon tram link and the Jubilee line extension, it is part of the substantial investment in public transport in London that the Government inherited from their predecessors. We welcome the order and give it our full support.

Mr. Peter Snape: I congratulate the Minister on the way in which she presented the order. I also congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) who, happily for us, now finds himself her shadow. My hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman have adopted a non-controversial approach to the scheme, which will bring the channel tunnel project to fruition to the benefit of the nation as a whole, rather than, as some of us feared initially, benefiting only London and the south-east.
I must declare an interest, as I am a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and chairman of Travel West Midlands, a bus company based in Birmingham and a wholly owned subsidiary of National Express.
The application under the Transport and Works Act 1992 seeks to put in place the last significant piece of the legislative framework for the channel tunnel rail link project. It will bring the benefits of the rail link to the widest possible community and, from that point of view, should be welcomed, as it has been by my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman.
The application covers two aspects of the rail link that, at first sight, are quite unrelated. Powers are sought for a combined international and domestic station at Stratford, and for an improved connection between the rail link and the existing railway network in the King's Cross railway lands. However, there is a business relationship between the two.
London and Continental Railways, the promoter of the order, wishes to offer the best possible international service from other major centres as well as London. Its proposals mean that Eurostar trains from, for example, Manchester and the west midlands to the continent will pass directly from the existing network—a modernised network, we hope—on to the rail link via the improved connection which forms part of the application, without having to go to the rail link terminal at St. Pancras and reverse direction there.
Although it is to be welcomed, such a scheme deprives me of a joke, or what passed for a joke when I travelled around the country talking to various interested parties


about international services to and from the centres of Europe. The prospect of sitting at St. Pancras station, waiting while the driver walks the length of a 14-coach Eurostar train, is not one to gladden the hearts of those of us who travel from, for example, Birmingham. The fact that the trains will now carry on to the channel tunnel rail link through the new and improved double connection is to be greatly welcomed.
Hon. Members, or the exclusive bunch to whom the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire referred, will be aware that the original CTRL proposals referred only to a single-line connection from the west coast main line to the CTRL. Although it could have been used operationally, one does not have to be an anorak, as rail buffs are sometimes known, to appreciate that a single line is not conducive to trains rushing up and down in both directions, at least not at the same time. The replacement of that original proposal with the double-line link is to be greatly welcomed.
As I suggested, there will be a reduction in journey times as a result of the order. We are now looking at Paris being only four hours from Birmingham and a fraction over five hours from Manchester. Having bypassed St. Pancras as I outlined, those trains will be able to make their London stop at the new Stratford station. When the rail link and the west coast main line connection are open, more than 20 million people in the United Kingdom will live within four hours of Paris. There is therefore a clear business logic to the application, as well as enormous economic and regional benefits to be had from it. I hope that Members representing constituencies along the west coast main line, those—like me—with constituencies in the west midlands and those, again like me, at least hailing from the north-west will recognise the benefits that will result from the proposals.

Mr. Mike Gapes: The scheme will be of great benefit to east London, because there are approximately 120,000 unemployed people living within five miles of the proposed station. The scheme will help my constituents and others and will greatly benefit the economic regeneration of east London as well as cut our travelling times to the continent—it will take about two hours and 15 minutes to travel to Paris from Stratford.

Mr. Snape: I am doubly heartened to think that my hon. Friend can take members of his family to Paris in two hours and 15 minutes, but he will have to clear that with the Whips Office under the current regime. He is right to point out the benefits that will accrue to his constituency and to the citizens of east London, an area that has high levels of unemployment. As he says, that problem will undoubtedly be alleviated to some extent.
Stratford is already a major public transport hub, soon to benefit further from the opening of the Jubilee line extension. The new international station on the rail link at Stratford will provide a valuable interchange with the wide range of existing public transport services radiating from there, giving much improved international access to north and east London, Essex, docklands and the City.
With the permission of the House, I should like to pay tribute to many hon. Friends, especially those from the Newham area, for fighting a long and successful battle to get an international station at Stratford. There were doubters in all parts of the House. I was never regarded

as a great enthusiast myself, and it is enormously to my hon. Friends' credit that they have sold the area that sends them to the House as well and as successfully as they have. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire mentioned the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who, in some respects, is the greatest ham of them all. We appreciate that his new and welcome ministerial duties keep him away this afternoon, but he, too, worked very hard to ensure that the proposals came before us in their current form.
The new station at Stratford will have two further dimensions. First, the rail link is intended to be used by domestic trains from north and east Kent to London, thus improving journey times dramatically when compared to travel via the existing routes. Domestic trains will serve the new station so that passengers from Kent will be able to benefit from the interchange opportunities.
Secondly, the new station will act as a focus for the regeneration of the Stratford area, one of the most deprived parts of London. Under the overall framework of the Thames gateway project, to which reference has already been made, the local authorities—led by the London borough of Newham—are working with local landowners and other interests on the redevelopment of the Stratford rail lands to bring new businesses and new employment opportunities which are so badly needed. The new station will be at the heart of the area.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire mentioned the need for proper public transport links at the new station, especially for buses. I am sure that he will appreciate that the station will have bus and coach set-down and pick-up points well positioned for the station's entrances and exits. Initially, the route to the station will be via the existing access road from Waterden road. Existing bus services could be extended or re-routed to allow for a stop at the station. A full range of services based on the new Stratford bus station will be accessible to passengers using the international station.
The pattern and routing of buses calling at the international station will be determined by development in the area. My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) will take a close interest in that during the building of the station and associated works to ensure that essential public transport links are provided from the outset so that the majority of passengers using the station can arrive or depart on public transport.
Major infrastructure projects usually have an environmental and human cost. I am delighted that this scheme is an exception. More than 90 per cent. of the land is railway land already earmarked for the rail link project and is some distance from existing residential areas. Construction will be undertaken as part of the overall rail link work, for which the House has already given permission, and will not add significantly to the environmental impact.
That is not to minimise the importance of the 56 objections that have been made, but, under the procedure set out in the Transport and Works Act 1992, those objections should be carefully considered and the promoter hopes that the majority of those objecting will have their fears soothed. The comprehensive environmental protection regime already put in place will also apply to this scheme.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support the scheme, which has many benefits. Support for the order in the House will be consistent with the expressed will of the past Parliament, which strongly supported the principle of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill in both Houses without a Division. Approval of the order will enable the scheme to go forward for detailed consideration at a public inquiry according to the procedures laid down under the Transport and Works Act.
Those of us who have seen the scheme come to fruition through postponements, cancellations and heartache over the years will be delighted that this is the final piece in this railway jigsaw, to misuse a metaphor. It will enable the great civil engineering project of the channel tunnel to bring proper economic benefits in its wake, as all of us who have been associated with it—as I have been since I was elected to the House—have wanted. Those benefits will come not just to Stratford or to London and the south-east, but to the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that the House will give that approval without a Division, but, if one is necessary, I hope that we shall have an overwhelming majority in favour.

Mr. David Chidgey: I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. It is a pleasure to see her looking at me with both eyes rather sideways, as used to happen in the last Parliament. I wish her every success and I look forward to debating transport issues with her in the coming months. As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said earlier, we have always managed if not to adopt a friendly approach to our debates, at least to stick to the issues rather than concentrating on personalities. I am sure that that will continue.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the order. We are pleased to see significant progress after the many disappointments and postponements that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) referred to. I hope that we can have an assurance that there will be no further delays as the scheme progresses towards completion.
I do not want to take up too much time, because I know that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. I should like to address three key issues, to which I hope that the Minister will respond: Stratford station; the north London connection; and public funding.
I asked the Minister about public funding during her speech. I was pleased that she foresaw no further demand on public resources. I hope that she will not be swayed from that view as the scheme progresses.
The development provides significant regeneration opportunities for the area served by Stratford station, with great potential for substantial long-term employment opportunities. We welcome that. There is an expectation in the Department's briefing that the station will encourage greater use of public transport. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East mentioned bus links.
The success of the station depends on the quality of the public transport links. There must be a comprehensive set of bus priority measures. I note that the car park has a capacity of 2,000. There must be opportunities for a park and ride or a kiss and ride scheme. I hope, most

importantly, that the Minister will do all that she can to encourage the creation of quality partnerships between the local authorities and the local bus operators so that the public are offered attractive, efficient and affordable bus links to the new international station.
The success of the station also depends on recognising the concerns that the local authorities have already set out. I note that the promoters intend to negotiate and try to resolve those problems, but I urge the Minister to use her influence to ensure that the promoters make every effort to resolve those fears before the public inquiry. If there are still objections when the public inquiry starts, the scheme will be delayed, which is the last thing that we want.
The twin-track connection in north London is a short but vital rail link to join the channel tunnel rail link with the west coast main line. A direct, high-speed connection from continental Europe, beyond the south-east of England to the west midlands, the north-west and beyond offers significant potential for economic development, regeneration and growth in tourism throughout England. I welcome that prospect and will eagerly support it.
A number of issues are germane to achieving those benefits.

Mr. Jamie Cann: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the fact that the North London line is already at capacity? I approve of diverting Eurostar on to it, but we ought to consider another method of getting rail traffic across from the west and the east, to Felixstowe in particular, by opening up a few routes that could be cheaply provided, allowing the project to go ahead much more effectively.

Mr. Chidgey: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments because they demonstrate the need to encourage Railtrack to make the investment desperately needed to expand our rail network now so that our railways properly serve the nation as the spine of our national transport system. The hon. Gentleman's point is very valid and I am sure that the Minister will take it on board.
We should also use the north London connection to encourage freight services through the channel tunnel to the north of England. We should promote freight services on the channel tunnel rail link via the north London connection to the west coast main line. That is vital in getting the important shift of freight from road to rail.
What consideration is the Minister giving to promoting freight trains through the channel, up to the west midlands and beyond? Will she grasp the opportunity to create the through-working of freight trains from continental Europe, along the channel tunnel rail link and on to the west coast main line to the north-west? Rail freight could be far more competitive with that opportunity. Are the Government pressing the French Government to accommodate through freight train operations from France to the United Kingdom by allowing freight trains to use the French rail network? Such an agreement would make the channel tunnel rail link much more attractive for freight operations.
I return to the connection between the chunnel and the north of England. It is disappointing that Eurostar services to the north have been delayed until later this year. Can the Minister tell us whether the delay has been caused by Railtrack failing to undertake the necessary upgrading of the rail network?
I welcome the potential for improvements to the North London line. The Minister will, however, be well aware that the line has a poor reputation among its customers. Can she assure me that improvements to North London line services are planned? Will there be improvements in reliability and, most importantly, in passenger safety, as part of the proposals?
The key points are how best to develop Stratford station and how best to develop, through the north London connection, the link between the channel tunnel rail line and the west coast main line. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I declare not only a constituency interest, but the fact that I live in the Lea valley and go for walks in the Bully Point nature reserve to which the Minister referred. It is a delightful and tranquil place. Those from Newham who would destroy it are capable of destroying civilisation itself.
The order is part of the fantasy politics of the London borough of Newham. Newham council calls the project "Gateway to the East", but those of us who know the area call it a gateway to hell. Have you ever been to Stratford town centre, Mr. Deputy Speaker? It is an offer that you could certainly refuse.
Every 20 years, Newham council decides to redevelop Stratford town centre in the most environmentally unfriendly fashion. First, the developers remove every blade of grass and every tree, and then they get rid of the human beings. After that, they dig as big a hole as possible, fill it with concrete and put as many cars as possible on it. That is an accurate description of Stratford town centre. When the councillors realise what a ghastly mess they have made of it, they whinge to the Government and say, "Can we redevelop our town centre with more of your money?" That is why we are here today.
I support the speedy building of the channel tunnel rail link, while expressing disgust at the manner in which the route was chosen. Newham council is concerned not so much with the international railway station as with a huge property development which, in 20 years' time, will contain some of the largest, and most soulless and empty office blocks we have ever seen. The council will then whinge again to the Government and ask whether it can redevelop the town centre.
On the question of the number of jobs likely to be created, Newham council and the promoters shame us with what I might describe as perpetual exponential hyperbole. Do you remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the old axiom that there are lies, damn lies and Newham council lies? When the debate about developing the station at Stratford began some years ago, we were told that the development might create 200 or so jobs. The figure then rose to 2,000 and then to 20,000. At one time, it was even said that the number of jobs might touch 100,000. The truth?
The truth is set out in some of the documents before the House. The station's construction over two years will directly create 430 jobs and a further 100 jobs are likely to be created from what is described as
associated induced and indirect expenditure".

When those people have gone off to the next building site in London, the station operation at Stratford will employ just 70 people—50 for international services and 20 for domestic services. Station retailing will create 30 jobs and a further 28 jobs will be created from what is described as
associated induced and indirect expenditure".
That is not a lot. The job hope is all pie in the sky stuff related to huge fat cat property development at Stratford, and it is part of the hyperbolic statistics for which Newham council and its leader are famed.
My main point in speaking is not to speak ill of Newham council, still less of my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), who will, I hope, catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend came to my general management committee and got a drubbing from one of our representatives. My main aim is to concentrate on the environmental statement that accompanies the order. For a couple of years, I worked for the Government in urban transport. I can say quite comfortably that the environmental statement is slipshod, shoddy, anti-intellectual and based on unsound methodology. The victims of this appalling piece of work are likely to be the residents of Newham and Hackney.
The only public road access to the station is not through Newham, but via Waterden road in Hackney. It will lead into what is currently a 2,000-space car park, but as the promoters will get 80 acres of land in the area, that could easily turn into a 10,000-space car park. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) gave it away—my God, what trouble he has created for himself in the House today!—by calling for park and ride facilities.
Both the previous Government and this Government have assured us that the one thing they will not have is park and ride facilities, because that would spew traffic all over south Hackney and through the roads and homes of people who live in Wick ward and Victoria ward, each of which has three Liberal Democrat councillors. Those residents will be pleased to hear that their Liberal Democrat spokesman wants to make their lives a misery for the next 50 years with park and ride schemes. That will be a disaster for Hackney and will lead to far more road building. It will probably lead to the need to start to build dual carriageways to the station.

Mr. Snape: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Sedgemore: No. My hon. Friend made a long speech and I need to be short.

Mr. Snape: I wanted to answer some of my hon. Friend's questions.

Mr. Sedgemore: I have met that one before.

Mr. Snape: You never listen—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.

Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is getting a bit excited. I know that he is a railway buff and I am keen on railway lines too, but that is no reason for him to think that the lives of people in south Hackney should be destroyed or not properly considered in this House.

Mr. Snape: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Sedgemore: The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend will not give way.
The environmental statement does not even consider the effects of the extra traffic on Hackney residents. That is appalling. Worse, it makes no attempt to justify the assumptions used and provides no explanation of how the predicted traffic flow has been derived from those assumptions. There are six people sitting up there. Perhaps they can advise the Minister as to the answers to those questions and explain why assumptions have been made without justification.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know that the only people present here are right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Sedgemore: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I used to sit up there when I worked in urban planning. That is why I am so excited about the issue.

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend made a great success of it, too.

Mr. Sedgemore: Actually, I worked in that Department under a Conservative Government.
It would have been possible to make a number of different assumptions about traffic flow. I can think of at least five. First, there could be more car trips from the west, particularly central London. Secondly, there could be more than nine international trains a day and three trains per hour using the station. Thirdly, more than 50 per cent. of international train passengers might use the station. Fourthly, more than 40 per cent. of international passengers might travel by road and fifthly, more domestic passengers than expected might travel by road. Variation in one or more of those assumptions could change significantly the predicted traffic flows. In fact, the environmental statement makes no reference to any of those possible variations.
Worse, the current proposals make no predictions as to the traffic flows that will result from the associated private developments. That leaves a gigantic black hole in the environmental statement, which refers to very small figures and makes no attempt to justify the assumptions it makes, but when one also considers the private developments and the cars travelling not through Newham, but through Hackney, it is clear that a miserable hell will be created for the people of south Hackney if the associated developments are sufficiently successful for the Minister to claim significant job creation.
I shall not oppose the order, but I believe that the public inquiry should closely examine 10 factors. First is the lack of explanation for the assumptions and conclusions used in the environmental statement concerning traffic and transport. Second is the proposed compulsory acquisition of part of Waterden road. Third is the consequential need to improve the rest of Waterden road up to the Lea interchange and the M11 link. Fourth is the loss of allotments with no compensating proposal for their replacement, on the grounds that such loss of open space cannot be justified without replacement elsewhere.
Fifth—a number of hon. Members have referred to it—is the possible need for additional works on the north London line in the vicinity of the connection and Camden

Road station to ensure that international services do not interfere with the operation or expansion of local services to and from Hackney and vice versa.
Sixth is the desirability of ensuring that the proposals for the station allow for the addition of a new surface station on the existing line across the Stratford railway lands to serve their development and the channel tunnel rail link station and further their accessibility by and the promotion of the use of public transport.
Seventh is the desirability of an additional access road from the surrounding road network to the station to enable it to be better served by public road transport, particularly buses. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East for mentioning that.
Eighth is the possible need to limit or reduce the size of the station car parks to discourage travel to the station by road and to encourage access by public transport, but I fear that the hon. Member for Eastleigh has given the game away. The car maniacs are always there and they always win.
Ninth, the gradient of the channel tunnel rail link west of Stratford station should be examined on the grounds that it inhibits the nominated undertaker in fully meeting the undertaking given to Hackney council in the other place concerning the depth of the tunnel beneath Trowbridge estate.
My tenth and final point is the one on which I started—Bully Point. Will Newham really destroy one of the most beautiful nature reserves in the country and will it make my life, living on the River Lea, a complete misery? Surely not.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Coming from a party that has no understanding of internal disputes, I listened with astonishment to the contest that was developing during the speech of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). I found it significant that, at that moment, the Minister for sport entered the Chamber, no doubt looking for some gladiatorial contest. I hope that he was not disappointed.
I must be one of the two longest-serving members of the group that wanted a station at Stratford. It may be surprising to some hon. Members to learn that I first became interested in Stratford when I was trying to persuade British Rail that the channel tunnel rail link should have been on a different route from the one that was finally chosen, and that Stratford was a manifestly sensible place for a station.
British Rail and its successor, Union Rail, had a wonderful preoccupation with what they both termed an aeroplane on wheels. They felt that any stop between terminuses was a total economic disaster and the idea that trains might pick up passengers was an aberration. I am pleased that, over the long years during which the project has been coming to fruition, there has been a change in the undertaker, which has moved from thinking that passengers who got on anywhere other than the starting point were a nuisance to at least giving the impression that passengers should be picked up at several places. That is progress indeed.
It is my first chance to welcome the Under-Secretary to her responsibilities, and I do so gladly. I very much hope that her Government will continue the work of the


previous Government in trying to ensure that projects of such a size progress rather faster. This one is doing all right. So far, it will have taken only 17 years to reach its projected final date, but the amount of grief that such a time scale causes to large numbers of our constituents while decisions are taken and the blight settles is intolerable. I hope that we can re-establish the all-party parliamentary group on blight, as we were beginning to make progress towards relieving that burden.
I received the information about the order about two days before I saw the newspaper reports that London and Continental Railways' takings from Eurostar were so poor that the company was likely to defer any works and was certainly deferring its flotation. That worried me considerably, so I got in touch with the company.
Yesterday, I had a long meeting with its representatives, who gave me firm assurances that the company is on track for flotation next year. They were confident of finishing the line and making it operational by 2003. They told me that revenue from the Eurostar services, although somewhat disrupted by a French strike two Christmases ago and by the fire in the tunnel last Christmas, are nevertheless sufficient to give them the confidence to go ahead. I wanted to spell that out, as it would be a betrayal of everyone along the route and everyone affected by the proposal if London and Continental Railways was unable to honour those pledges. It gave them to me in the most firm manner.
One of the great advantages of Stratford is that it will allow international passengers to be carried from one end of the United Kingdom into mainland Europe much more effectively than under previous plans. That is admirable. What bothers me a little is that the promoters say that the channel tunnel link will free up capacity on commuter routes. I was gently derided by Conservative Ministers for many years for suggesting that one day the pattern of commuting would change. I cannot believe that the information technology revolution will not eventually have a dramatic effect on patterns of travel to work.
It is interesting that, after those years of derision, British Telecom at least has thought it worth spending a large sum of money on an advertising campaign that points out that it can now provide offices at home for people who currently commute, thereby allowing people to commute either much less often or not at all. I hope that the Government are taking seriously that possibility.
The income repercussions of a marked change in the pattern of commuting will be considerable unless freight is carried on commuter lines. While the channel tunnel rail link may become a profitable venture as a result of the growth of international travel, domestic travel may well become less profitable and commuters may return to the position in which commuters in my area have been for far too long. Commuter services are under-resourced because it is not profitable to resource them. I ask the Minister to take seriously the possibility, indeed probability, that information technology will change the nature of travel to work in the coming years.
I welcome the station at Stratford. It is an eminently necessary and sensible development and, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the previous companies engaged in the operation were so hostile to it.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I welcome the way in which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions introduced the debate. The channel tunnel rail link will yield big gains to the nation. As much as £6 billion has been estimated. The construction and operation of Stratford station assigns some of those gains to east London. Jobs, regeneration opportunities and significantly improved transport connections are huge benefits which are very welcome. So the station is supported in principle.
However, the project is not cost-free. There is a downside for neighbouring areas such as mine—Leyton, Leytonstone and Wanstead. That downside, in a word, is traffic. My constituency is already overburdened with it, and any extra traffic problems must be considered and ameliorated at an early stage.
The M11 link road remains a bitter bone of contention in Leyton and Wanstead. Promises of improvements for local roads as a result of its construction, which many did not believe at the time of the public inquiries, are already being withdrawn. Rat runs continue in local streets. Traffic delays and congestion on the link road itself due to greater car usage than was originally suggested are acknowledged even before it is built. Leytonstone High road continues to be a major trunk road, even though its part-pedestrianisation was originally mooted. Those broken promises are placing extra burdens on the community.
Traffic associated with Stratford station will upset still further the traffic predictions for the M11 link road. The M11-Lee interchange has been designed to be in balance with the local road network and thereby prevent additional traffic from entering Hackney and Tower Hamlets in peak periods, when the intersection will run at its design capacity. The environmental assessment predicted an extra 400 vehicles per hour—a 42 per cent. Increase—on Waterden road in the morning peak. That will lead to huge problems not only in Hackney and on Waterden road but further back down the link road in Leyton and Wanstead.
There will inevitably be pressure to improve the capacity of Waterden road, but that will also mean higher levels of traffic passing through Leyton and Wanstead, including local streets. That will negate the traffic relief that the M11 link road is supposed to provide, especially in Grove Green road, Leytonstone High road and Cambridge Park. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) made a good point when he said that yet more traffic from the private developments which would follow from the station should be taken into account.
London and Continental Railways, together with the Department of Transport and the relevant boroughs, must make proposals to remedy the problems.

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend makes a similar point to the one to which I would have replied had I been allowed to do so by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). I appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead makes the point.
Of course traffic is a problem. The promoters have given an assurance that there will be both price and physical constraints on commuter traffic to prevent people from railheading in the way that the spokesman for the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Eastleigh


(Mr. Chidgey),favoured. So while my hon. Friend's fears are obvious and can be appreciated, they are not fears which can be generated by the order before the House tonight.

Mr. Cohen: I accept that the order will go to a public inquiry. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those assurances on behalf of the promoters, but boroughs such as mine will want a great deal more than has so far been suggested to deal with the traffic. I hope that my hon. Friend will relay that message to London and Continental Railways.
The environmental statement proposes up to 2,000 car parking spaces in association with the station. No-where in the statement is there justification for that number of spaces. London and Continental Railways should either justify or reduce the number of spaces. Areas surrounding the station such as Leyton and Leytonstone should not be turned into large car parks—certainly not without enormous ameliorating environmental compensation for the area.
Furthermore, there should not be unrestrained increased traffic on Leyton and Leytonstone roads to service Stratford station. Traffic levels on roads into the station need to be kept to the minimum. One way of achieving that is to increase public transport provision into the station. For example, there should be rail services northwards along the Lee valley. Under no circumstances should there be a new road along the Lee valley.
Road access to the station needs to be tightly constrained in order to reduce the damaging environmental effects of traffic in neighbouring areas. That has not yet been properly taken into account.
London and Continental Railways stands to profit a great deal from the Stratford development and the channel tunnel rail link as a whole, but as I have made clear, it is not cost-free. In this private-public partnership, which can benefit all, the cost of dealing with the disbenefits must be met. I believe that they should be met by London and Continental Railways.

Mr. Damian Green: I rise with some trepidation, having heard that some hon. Members on both sides of the House have been fighting these battles for a decade or more. My predecessor was in the front line of many of those battles. He served as Member of Parliament for Ashford for more than 20 years, and one of his most earnest wishes was that the channel tunnel rail link project be built during the equivalent amount of time that he expected me to serve in the House.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Tony Banks): We shall have to move fast, then.

Mr. Green: We may have to improve on the speed so far, I suspect.
I join other hon. Members in supporting the works proposed by the Minister. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) gave one of the most negative expressions of support that I have heard for any proposition.
I want to interject a reservation which will be important for the Stratford area. I draw to the attention of hon. Members with constituencies near Stratford our experience in Ashford, which is further down the process because a station has already been built. Our experience of the disturbance, the effects on traffic and so on will prove relevant to Stratford. By and large, it has been positive.
All reservations about the project must be weighed against the fact that the project should be regarded as an enormous asset, both to those areas of the country through which it runs, and nationally. Inward investment and economic regeneration have come much faster to Ashford because of the existence of the international passenger station. The prospect of a high-speed rail link will not only improve transport links to the continent but allow faster commuting to London and beyond.
However, there has been, and still is, an unfortunate degree of uncertainty about timing and starting dates that has had a severe effect on people whose homes and businesses lie in the way of the link and who will have to move when it is built. One of the things that I have discovered in the past few weeks is that many of those people are disturbed by what they perceive as a lack of openness on the part of London and Continental in giving straight answers to straight questions.
We all know that many questions simply cannot be answered at this stage—no one is being unrealistic about that—but I ask the Minister to use her good offices to urge London and Continental to be more open with people, whether in Ashford or Stratford, who are directly affected by the line's construction and the blight that it already causes, by giving more detailed information about dates and projected building times than it has up to now. I hope that London and Continental will regard the passing of the order as clearing a vital hurdle, and that it will use it as a chance to clear up the uncertainties about the timing of construction work that affects so many people, and that will soon affect more in the Stratford area.
I hope that the flotation will go ahead as fast as possible. I was reassured when my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said that London and Continental hopes to proceed with flotation next year and then proceed to other building works. I hope even more strongly that firm dates can be attached to the various stages of the project. I congratulate those who have seen the project through so far, and I assure hon. Members that Stratford and the whole east London area will benefit as Ashford is already benefiting. However, the passage of this order must be used to enable regeneration to be accompanied by greater certainty for the business and home owners who are most affected by the line. I appeal to the Minister to use her powers to ensure that London and Continental changes its culture and becomes more open to those people.

Mr. Stephen Timms: I am pleased to have the opportunity to support the motion strongly. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister opened the debate, because of her long interest in the project. I commend the role of London and Continental Railways because, as other hon. Members explained, this has been a long saga. The contribution of London and Continental has been


imaginative since its participation began. I have also been impressed by the way in which it has entered into discussions with local community organisations about ways of making sure that the many jobs that will be generated by the construction project will be filled, as far as possible, by unemployed people from Newham, Hackney and Tower Hamlets.
I was chair of the planning committee on Newham council when British Rail first suggested that there might be an international station at Stratford. Having aired it, British Rail quickly stepped back from the proposal, but when I briefed colleagues on Newham council about the idea, they were immediately enthusiastic because of the chance it gives to regenerate east London and to bring back economic activity and jobs to an area where thousands from Newham, Hackney and Tower Hamlets used to gain their livelihood and where today only a handful do. We want economic activity to be brought back.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Does my hon. Friend accept that not only will east London's economic regeneration benefit from the station but that Norwich and East Anglia will benefit from the tremendously improved travel times to London and Europe that will bring us jobs and prosperity? That is why we strongly support the project and the order.

Mr. Timms: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important point. The support of East Anglia for the project was an important factor in the campaign's success. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) in his place.
It was while I was leader of Newham council that I first became aware of the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). Most of us understand how to raise issues with colleagues when policies cause concern, perhaps by a letter, telephone call or meeting. He chose first to draw attention to his views through his column in the Hackney Gazette, where he described me as a lunatic. I note that he has been consistent in his views to this day.
Newham council's campaign for the station at Stratford has been extraordinarily popular. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) is in his place. He is in continual contact with the people of the area because he lives there. Whenever opinion in Stratford has been tested, there has been overwhelming support for bringing jobs back to the Stratford railway lands through this project.
The campaign brought together in a remarkable way the local community, local community organisations, the local authority and local businesses. For that reason, I was especially pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister, in his important speech last week outlining the new Government's policies on regenerating our cities, picked out the Stratford Promoters Group as an example of successful partnership.
Speaking in Tower Hamlets, he referred to the group as a "spectacular success", and said:
Let me give you one example from the neighbouring Borough of Newham. Some years ago, the local authority and other local partners brought together the Stratford Promoters Group which lobbied hard and effectively for an International Passenger Station at Stratford … That is the sort of partnership I want to see.
He was right to say that it has been a very successful partnership with the local community, and I am delighted that it has led to the success that we are noting today by supporting the order.
There are many people whose role in the campaign has been mentioned. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench. He has taken an interest in the project for a long time. He was much more supportive when in office than some of his predecessors, who were positively unwilling to support the station proposal.
I pay tribute also to the members of the Select Committee who considered the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill as it then was, including my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). Their conclusion that the station at Stratford was in the national interest was an important step towards the Government's agreement that there should be a station at Stratford.
It is important in east London to bring back economic activity and jobs into an area from which they have long disappeared, in huge numbers. I think that Stratford will be the London hub for the future national high-speed railway network. The Stratford railway land is a 120-hectare site that is important strategically for the future of east London. The international station will have a vital role in attracting development to Stratford, Newham and the Thames gateway as a whole.
Stratford will underpin the importance of London as a world city. We are talking not of a local issue but one that is regional, Londonwide and national. We expect that when the rail land is fully developed, there will be about 15,000 jobs on site. The project will make a huge contribution to the regeneration of east London and to raising the level of prosperity in the area generally. It is a contribution that is very much needed.
I make a request through my hon. Friend the Minister to London and Continental Railways—that it should be willing to work with the local authority and potential development partners to ensure that the plan for the station site and the construction of the station building is of a sort that leads to successful long-term development of an enormous site.
I well understand the pressures that London and Continental is now under, but it is in its interests and those of the local communities that we should ensure that the development of the station itself contributes to the wider development of the site and the prosperity that results from that.
The station will be a great step forward for east London, but there are some important environmental issues still to be resolved. There is no threat to Bully Point. I do not expect to see a 2,000-space car park on that site. These, however, are matters that need to be resolved in discussions between the local authorities, London and Continental and potential developers, and they can be resolved. Let no one in the House underestimate the immense popularity in the locality of the proposal and the widespread support that there is for it.

Ms Glenda Jackson: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate. It seems that there is a feeling on both sides of the Chamber that the order should be passed. I hope that that will be the outcome of the debate.
The right hon.Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who speaks for the Opposition from the Front Bench, said, if I might paraphrase, that he saw the usual faces in the Chamber for the debate although they seem to represent different areas. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, has a brand-new constituency.
I shall link the issue of compensation that the right hon. Gentleman raised with the questions put by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on planning procedures and blight. Before doing so, however,I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome to me.
The Government expect the final report of the interdepartmental group on blight later this year. The draft scheme on redress, which was put to the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration shortly before the general election, is being considered as to the best way forward.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for his contribution to the debate, which was especially helpful to the House in detailing what is so important about the order. Without the order, there can be no next step. My hon. Friend highlighted the importance of the development that we are discussing, stemming from his lifelong commitment to and knowledge of the importance of railways. He highlighted, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), in an intervention, the importance of the scheme going forward, not least for employment opportunities. The point was highlighted also in another intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke).
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) seemed mostly to be concerned about issues that in essence, if the order is accepted, will be the responsibility of the public inquiry. That theme ran through many of the contributions of hon. Members. Everyone in this place shares concern over environmental issues. There is little doubt, should the order be accepted, that the public inquiry will examine these issues in no small detail.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh raised also the issue of freight and the development of it. In essence, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, the channel tunnel rail link is a high-speed link to carry passengers. If, however, the order is accepted and if the links are made, along with the construction of the station, existing lines will be released. Freight will be able to be carried on the channel tunnel rail link and there will be additional capacity on existing lines.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), in a typically robust contribution, claimed that he had not come to the Chamber to speak ill of Newham council. May I say to him that he could have fooled me? However, my hon. Friend was mostly concerned about the environment, which is an issue more properly examined at the public inquiry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) talked also of environmental concerns. He, too, said that we must move away from an over-dependency on car usage, and that is central to the Government's thinking. That can be most speedily progressed by the creation of a properly integrated public transport system.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) took up, in a sense, one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms). I have no doubt that London and Continental will pick it up and act on it with some speed. It is important for the speedy development of projects such as the one that we are discussing that there be great openness between the developer and the local communities. Should the order be passed, should the report

of the public inquiry advise and should the Secretary of State so order, there must be close working between the developer and the communities.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham. I am delighted to see that the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), is sitting next to my hon. Friend. I had little doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham would be here in spirit, and it is more of a pleasure to see that he is here in the flesh, albeit that he has not chosen to delight the Chamber with a contribution to the debate.
We pay tribute to the work, the dedication and the energy which my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham has brought consistently to the project that we are considering. He has never flagged or failed in his belief in the project and the benefits that it can bring to his constituency, to London and to the country as a whole.
If I have not answered any questions raised this afternoon, I shall write to hon. Members. I remind the House that agreeing to the order will not be decisive but it will enable an application to go forward to a public inquiry, with a clear endorsement, assuming that it is agreed in another place, in principle by Parliament. I commend the application to the House and invite Members to approve the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, pursuant to section 9(4) of the Transport and Works Act 1992 ("the Act") as applied by section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, approves the following proposals, contained in an application for an Order submitted under section 6 of the Act by Eurostar (UK) Limited on 23rd January 1997 and entitled The Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Stratford Station and Subsidiary Works) Order, for

(1) The construction, maintenance and operation of—

(i) in the London Borough of Hackney and Newham, a station at Stratford for international and domestic services on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link with vehicular parking and other facilities in connection therewith; railways comprising down and up lines to serve international and domestic platforms at that station; and a station access road off Waterden Road, including a bridge over the River Lea;
(ii) in the London Borough of Hackney, a realignment and improvement of Waterden Road;
(iii) in the London Borough of Newham, a subway at the existing suburban Stratford station with a pedestrian link to the new station; and
(iv) in the London Boroughs of Camden and Islington, railways near St. Pancras to provide access between the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and the West Coast Main Line by means of a connection to the North London Line.
(2) The authorisation of works ancillary to the above-mentioned works, including the stopping-up of York Way in the London Boroughs of Camden and Islington, the making of a means of access to and from that road and interference with waterways.
(3) The compulsory acquisition or use of land or rights in land for the intended works; compensation for this and for the injurious affection of land; and the compulsory use of subsoil.

Northern Ireland

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I beg to move,
That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (Amendment) Order 1997 (S.I., 1997, No. 1403), which was laid before this House on 3rd June, be approved.
The order proscribed the Loyalist Volunteer Force and the Continuity Army Council. It came into effect on 4 June and is subject to approval within 40 sitting days.
Let me begin by giving some background to those two organisations. The Loyalist Volunteer Force is a breakaway group of the Ulster Volunteer Force. The Continuity Army Council is a name generally used to describe the military wing of Republican Sinn Fein.
We do not take decisions concerning the proscription of any organisation lightly. It might be helpful, therefore, if I put the proscription of these two organisations in the context of a number of appalling acts of terrorism for which they have claimed responsibility.
In March this year, the LVF set fire to the tourist information centres in Banbridge and Newcastle. It was also responsible for arson attacks on the Irish heritage centre in Donaghmore, a school in Newry and Sinn Fein offices in Dungannon. It also in the same month claimed responsibility for planting a bomb in Dundalk town centre. In April, it claimed responsibility for an arson attack on a public house in Aghalee, and in May it claimed responsibility for the murder of 62-year-old Sean Brown, a local member of the Gaelic Athletic Association club. He had been abducted from the club and his body was found beside his burnt-out car in Randalstown. The reason given: loyalist parades being re-routed.
With regard to the CAC, in July 1996, it claimed responsibility for a car bomb left outside Killyhevlin hotel in Enniskillen, which destroyed much of the building. In September, it claimed responsibility for a bomb abandoned in a stolen car in Belfast city centre. In May, the CAC was believed to be responsible for a car bomb in Belfast, which detonated prematurely, injuring an occupant of the car.
Taking into account acts such as those, and judging carefully all the available information against the statutory criterion for proscription—being concerned in terrorism or in promoting or encouraging it—I concluded that, in both cases, that criterion had been fully met. Once that judgment had been made, I took prompt action, as any organisations that are constituted for the primary purpose of carrying out criminal terrorist acts can have no legitimate place in our society.
As a result of the order, it is an offence to be a member of the LVF or CAC from the time that they became proscribed organisations. It is also an offence to solicit or invite any person to become a member of those organisations or to assist in the holding of a meeting to support or further their activities.
Proscription cannot prevent terrorist acts, but it does make life harder for the terrorists. Most important of all, it gives a clear statement of the Government's and society's abhorrence of those organisations. Those who put themselves above the law must expect the consequences. Those crimes serve only to exacerbate divisions and

mistrust in Northern Ireland society. Proscription reinforces the Government's commitment to protect all the citizens of Northern Ireland.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is it not the case that, apart from all else, members of the LVF have been and remain deeply implicated in the disgraceful, violent picketing of the small Catholic church at Harryville?

Marjorie Mowlam: Yes, there is evidence to suggest that that is the case. I join my hon. Friend and all hon. Members in condemning the sectarian bigotry that we see every weekend at Harryville Catholic church, where attempts have been made to stop people entering, showing their faith and being able to participate in church services. It is an example of how the tensions and the sectarianism are surfacing again in the run-up to the marching season. I join my hon. Friend wholeheartedly in condemning what has been happening there.
We hope that the proscription of the LVF and the CAC will have some effect in showing that we as a House of Commons do not give any credence to such behaviour, and that we shall work in the weeks and months ahead to do all we can to build a society that is based on peace, prosperity and reconciliation for all sides of the community.

Mr. Michael Ancram: The Opposition support the order. We accept that the Secretary of State has shown that there is sufficient information to justify the proscribing of the two groups, which is obviously not a light matter; the decision has not been lightly taken. She gave us a list of the acts that appear to have been committed by both groups, on both sides of the sectarian spectrum, interestingly. The Opposition are satisfied that she had every justification for acting to proscribe them.
As the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) reminded the Secretary of State, it is not just straightforward acts of violence that are carried out by such groups. As he said, we have seen the disgraceful behaviour at Harryville. We have seen other sectarian acts on the other side in relation to the burning of Orange halls and so on, all of which strike directly at the deep rights of individuals, such as the right to worship. It is absolutely correct that we should condemn wholeheartedly those who try to disrupt those basic rights, for which many people's ancestors—on both sides of the divide—died. They are precious rights, and we should certainly take a strong and condemnatory view of those who seek to disrupt them.
The reasons for such proscription must be twofold: first, to bring to bear on such organisations and their members the full force of criminal law, to make it more difficult for them to pursue their nefarious activities; and, secondly, to show beyond doubt the implacable hostility with which a democratic society regards those who systematically seek to use violence in pursuit of political ends. Those reasons for proscription are different, but they relate to the way in which society conducts itself, and it is right that, in those circumstances, proscription is used.
The emergence of those two groups may have been by design, in order to provide cover for acts of terrorism outwith the recognised structures of the IRA or the


Combined Loyalist Military Command, or it may have been caused by disgruntled breakaways from within those organisations. Either way, I believe that it is right that the trap door of proscription should now be closed on them.
Being sanguine—I think that the Secretary of State recognised this—I do not believe that this act alone will lead to a flood of convictions for membership, or, indeed, to the disbandment of those groupings. The history of previous proscriptions does not give great grounds for over-optimism, particularly in relation to the difficulties of securing sufficient evidence to make charges stick. We all know of the intimidation that is brought to bear on those who on occasion show sufficient courage to give evidence against others in their community for membership of proscribed groups. It is one of those difficult areas where the intention of the order may not in practice turn out to be quite as achievable as we would hope.
I hope that I shall be proved wrong, but history suggests that we should not put too much store by the effectiveness of criminal conviction that might follow such an order. None the less, the order gives an important message and is a positive step. In that context, it is worth reminding ourselves that there are other proscribed groups on the loyalist and the republican side, the most highly organised of which is the Provisional IRA, whose political wing, which is not proscribed, is Sinn Fein.
I mention that because, in the pursuit of peace over the years, that fact has on occasion become somewhat blurred in the minds and mouths of certain commentators and observers, encouraged sometimes by the romanticisation and glorification of those movements on the cinema screen. Just as these two groups are being proscribed by the order because they are terrorist groups, so, we must never forget, is the Provisional IRA. It is an organisation designed and committed to achieve its political objectives through the use of violence, murder, injury and destruction. It must continue to be pursued with the full vigour of the law, just as the two groups proscribed today will be until they mend their ways.

Dr. Godman: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the romanticisation of terrorist organisations in films and plays, but we should also remember the romanticisation of such people in newspapers elsewhere in the world. When I was in Australia at Christmas, I was appalled to read of events in Northern Ireland and to see terrorists described in broadsheets, not tabloids, as guerrillas. I made my views known to some journalists whom I met when I was there.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Those of us who have been involved in Northern Ireland see a very different side than is often portrayed, as he says, in newspapers and films. We are talking about not guerrillas or freedom fighters, but people who kill, maim, destroy, injure and create devastation to families and communities in pursuit of political objectives, and there is nothing glorious or romantic about that. It is right, when considering the proscription of the two groups today, that we recognise that that same definition applies to the Provisional IRA and to the proscribed organisations within the Combined Loyalist Military Command as well.

Rev. Martin Smyth: What impact does proscription have on the media who broadcast the

words of proscribed groups, saying that they have had a coded message, and at the same time give publicity to those who put hoods on themselves? That does not disguise their body language or their speech. Surely proscription should at least make the media accountable to the law as well.

Mr. Ancram: I am not sure that it is necessarily wise to try to restrict the media by law on occasions such as this, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I hope that the media will recognise the responsibility they bear in this area, and the fact that, if they set out to portray acts of horror and terror as anything other than that, they are themselves helping to create a myth which is destructive to the process in which the Secretary of State and others are involved in trying to bring peace to Northern Ireland.
It is for that reason—we must also look at the matter in this context—that it is right that Sinn Fein, as the political wing of a proscribed organisation, cannot be admitted to the talks process until a genuine and unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire by the Provisional IRA is again in place. That is why the judgment of that ceasefire has to be based on more than just words. Actions will be just as important, as will be the cessation of actions, because, in judging whether a proscribed organisation such as the Provisional IRA is genuine in a ceasefire, it is right that we look to see whether it is still doing things that are inconsistent with a ceasefire. Those which were identified last November, which I understand are still those that the Secretary of State would consider, include continued surveillance, continued targeting and the continued development of weapons, which, in terms of a proscribed terrorist outfit, are simply inconsistent with any declaration of a ceasefire.
Sinn Fein is, of its nature, implicated by association in the violence of the IRA, and no amount of counter-protestation by its arch-propagandists can distort that fact. That is why it is right that Sinn Fein must show a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and adherence to democratic principles before it can be included in the democratic process.
I can assure the Secretary of State that in the—currently, I have to say—unlikely event of a ceasefire, the Opposition will support her in the most vigorous examination of the words and actions during any ceasefire in order to be satisfied that they show a genuine move away from terrorist violence as a means of seeking to achieve political objectives. Without such vigorous examination and assessment, the confidence to allow a fully inclusive process of talks to prosper simply would not exist.
The order is introduced at a time of great uncertainty and, I think it is right to say, tension in Northern Ireland, when recent acts of violence on all sides, including yesterday's vicious assassination, have given rise to raw sensitivities about the present and apprehension about the future. The order will give some assurance of the Government's attitude to fringe sectarian terrorism, and for that reason I welcome it.
I am sure that the right hon. Lady will agree that such determination is all the better for being balanced and even-handed. She will know the importance of a balanced approach throughout the work that she is currently undertaking, and I hope that she will bear that in mind in


her future consideration of other aspects of what she is doing, such as consideration of the North report and her attitude towards the future of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
It is essential that all parts of the community have confidence at this time that their position, traditions and safeguards are not being unilaterally undermined. I think that the Secretary of State agreed with me yesterday at Question Time on the importance of dialogue and agreement in moving forward. I trust that she will show that in practice in dealing with the thorny issues that confront her because, at the end of the day, confidence building depends on consultation and trust.
To confirm the benefit of the order, I hope that the Secretary of State will take the earliest opportunity to impress upon the new Government in Dublin that confidence will be created and retained only by an even approach to both parts of the community in Northern Ireland, and that any undue indication of sympathy towards the republican cause will undermine the efforts that she must be making to assure the people of Northern Ireland that the political process in which she is involved, and her fight against terrorism, are reasons for confidence rather than fear. She deserves the understanding and co-operation of the Irish Government in that regard.
The Opposition welcome the order. We expect with confidence to see it accompanied by other Government actions consistent with a determination to eradicate the scourge of terrorism wherever it occurs in Northern Ireland and, in that respect, the Secretary of State will have our support.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: To add to my intervention in the speech of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), no one who engages in violent activities against a Government in a parliamentary democracy can legitimately be described as a guerrilla. Journalists elsewhere in the world who do that are guilty of the worst kind of romanticism and sloppy, badly researched journalism.
I welcome the order. The right hon. Member for Devizes may be right when he says that such a measure may not lead to any increase in the number of successful prosecution for violent behaviour. Nevertheless, for a Secretary of State who has been in office for just five weeks, it is in a plain way a strong declaration of intent, and I compliment her on that.
I support what the right hon. Member for Devizes said when he talked about the dreadful behaviour of those who have engaged in seeking to harass—and worse—ordinary people whose only aim was to attend mass at that small church in Harryville. Similarly, the arsonists who have fired Orange halls must be condemned in an identical manner.
The order is a declaration of intent which I welcome, as, I am sure, will ordinary people in the two communities in Northern Ireland.

Mr. David Trimble: I begin by offering apologies on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who had intended to take part in the debate but was unable to do so because of difficulties in obtaining a flight from Belfast.
The Secretary of State's decision to proscribe the CAC and the LVF was almost certainly inevitable in view of the actions of both bodies, assuming that distinct bodies operate under those names; sometimes one is never entirely sure. Although proscription may not be as effective as one would like, it is necessary in order to show the community's abhorrence of terrorist actions. Consequently, we support the proscription, because it has become inevitable.
The Continuity Army Council has been a problem for some time, as shown by the litany of events that the Secretary of State mentioned, which go back to the major car bomb in Enniskillen in 1996. It is somewhat surprising that that organisation was not proscribed sooner.
The Loyalist Volunteer Force seems to be composed of dissident elements of the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association. One cannot be absolutely sure, but the impression one gets is that elements within those organisations who were opposed to the loyalist ceasefire have drifted away from their parent organisations and have been engaged in terrorist activity of their own. That that has happened is to be condemned. It has tended to undermine the integrity of the loyalist ceasefire, which is a matter of considerable regret.
One of the few positive aspects of security in Northern Ireland in the past year is the fact that the loyalist ceasefire has been sustained, albeit with some difficulty. People in those organisations who moved to the position of being opposed to the loyalist ceasefire have made a serious mistake. I hope that, even at this stage, those who have been engaged in such activity will realise how foolish it is. Loyalist violence at this stage simply lets the IRA off the hook. It is completely counter-productive, and is quite wrong. Any loyalist who is currently engaged in violent activity should do some hard thinking about whom they are actually helping.
The Secretary of State mentioned the consequences of proscription, such as prosecution for membership of such organisations. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) referred to the difficulty of making such charges stick. That is part of the general problem of prosecuting people for terrorist offences. Why has not more progress been made on the development of a proper, coherent witness encouragement and protection scheme? Some action has been taken on the protection side, but why has more not been done to develop a proper witness encouragement scheme? For years, the RUC has argued that such a scheme is needed. It is a pity that more has not been done about that.
Proscription leads to a number of remedies in regard to fund raising on behalf of proscribed organisations. That is very important. There has been some success on that front, but not enough. We should target the fund-raising activities of the organisations that have just been proscribed, particularly the Loyalist Volunteer Force, which is engaged in racketeering. Some people suggest that racketeering is given a greater priority than the actions in which it claims to be engaged. Close attention should be paid to that, because, by virtue of the proscription, authorities will have the power to investigate racketeering. One hopes that some positive consequences will come from that.
As the right hon. Member for Devizes said, the greatest security threat is still the IRA. It was on a go-slow during the various elections: the election in the Irish Republic,


the local government elections in Northern Ireland and the general election. However, the threat is still there. In some respects, the threat is just as high and just as great as ever it was, and people should not be complacent. Vigorous action by the security forces against all proscribed organisations is clearly needed. There is still a general belief in the community that that vigour is not being applied, and that a degree of restraint is still being exercised over the police, the Army and the intelligence services for political reasons because of the so-called peace process. I hope that the Minister of State will make it clear that no such restraint is being applied, and that vigorous action will be taken against all proscribed organisations. We may then see the consequences of that.
People in Northern Ireland were greatly encouraged by the security forces' success against IRA activists in South Armagh a month or two ago. That was noted and deeply appreciated: during the election campaign, many people in my constituency commented positively on that. But it seems to have been an isolated success. I hope that the Government will give the police, the Army and the intelligence services every encouragement to repeat that success, because it is very much needed.
There is no doubt that the IRA will try during the summer to do what it can to destabilise society in Northern Ireland. At the secret meeting of Sinn Fein in the Irish Republic six months ago, Gerry Adams boasted about what it had achieved last summer. He told his adherents that what had happened in Drumcree was no accident, but was the work of his activists over several years. There is no doubt that he and his associates will try to do the same this summer. That is causing tension in the community, and it is not helped by the fact that morale in the RUC is poor. That poor morale is not improved by the comments about so-called police reform, which have not been fully explained to the police or the community. Something must done on those fronts as well.
Proscription is inevitable. We support the order, and we hope that the Government will proceed from this point to ensure that vigorous action is taken against all proscribed organisations.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I welcomed the arrival of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, and I strongly supported it during its passage through the House, as I supported previous emergency provisions Acts. In my judgment, the powers and provisions of the successive Acts have been and remain essential, and the Secretary of State's action today confirms that. More to the point, the people who make use of those powers and provisions have consistently reported that they are helpful and necessary. The time certainly is not right to abandon them, as the Secretary of State's tabling of this amendment order and the situation on the ground in Northern Ireland confirm.
The amendment order is brief and modest, but, notwithstanding its brevity and modesty, I welcome and support it. The proscribing of organisations may not be the ultimate weapon in the fight against terrorists, but it is a useful adjunct. In some circumstances, it can be a means of securing convictions, although not as frequently as many of us would like. It certainly sends out the right

message that there is no lawful place in a free, democratic society for organisations that believe that violence is a legitimate means of pursuing political objectives.
I have no doubt that the two named organisations deservedly qualify for proscription. Their reported actions show that, and I dare say that intelligence sources also provide further good reasons for their proscription. I applaud the Secretary of State's prompt and decisive action.
When the present Secretary of State was shadow Secretary of State, she sometimes described her position on policy issues as "constructive criticism." I often felt that "constructive criticism" was a euphemism for "opposing politely". Nevertheless, I believe that the Government of the day appreciated her approach, and I shall try to follow her example.
Obviously, this is not the occasion for a wide debate on emergency provisions Acts or on the Government's overall intentions with regard to anti-terrorist legislation. However, it is worth putting down in utmost brevity some markers to which, no doubt, we shall return on future occasions.
The first marker that I want to put down is a bit complicated. It relates to the EPA and the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. I may be mistaken, but in the final days of the previous Parliament, I formed the impression that Labour Members might be thinking in terms of moving beyond the Lloyd review. I based that understanding on the speech of the present Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) when we last debated EPA matters on 19 March. He said then:
Lord Lloyd … said that many of the procedural provisions in the Emergency Provisions Acts might have taken a different form given the existence of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. He also said that once lasting peace had been established in Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom there would be no need for separate Acts: one would suffice."—[Official Report, 19 March 1997; Vol. 292, c. 1016.]
I hope that, in their deliberations, the Government will not lose sight of Lord Lloyd's all-important qualification. In his judgment, the need for separate Acts remains unless there is lasting peace. That, in itself, demands a considerable passage of time after a ceasefire, or we will not know that that ceasefire is lasting.
When Lord Lloyd referred to separate Acts, did he not have in mind the EPA and PTA, not the EPA and the 1988 order, as the present Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland seemed to think was the case? In either event, Lord Lloyd warned against streamlining or amalgamating legislation unless there was lasting peace, and I believe that it would be unwise to overlook that.
My second marker relates to the Diplock courts. Here again, I hope that the Government will not act too hastily. I do not think that the essential issue is whether to contract in or out of a Diplock court system; I cannot see that that really matters. Nor should it be argued—as it sometimes is—that the Diplock court system is a form of inferior justice. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) made that point persuasively in the Second Reading debate on 19 February last year.
Surely the essential issue is whether Diplock courts are still needed-and they are: we cannot yet dispense with them. Deeply though we may regret it, the threat


of intimidation, or worse, for jurors or witnesses, is as great as ever. To provide protection would be extremely difficult in practical terms and would almost certainly be cost-prohibitive, in view of the number of people who would need to be protected and the length of time for which they would have to be protected. I hope that the Government will not rush in and precipitately curtail the Diplock system.
For the sake of brevity, I shall refer to the third marker only in passing. It relates to the silent video recording of questioning in the holding centres. The arguments about whether the right balance has been maintained, and about whether we are going too far or not far enough, are well rehearsed, but I feel that silent video recording should be given a reasonable trial. That has not yet happened, and it should before any change is seriously considered.
My fourth marker relates to detention orders. Hon. Members have made their hostility to such orders very clear and the arithmetic of the House is such that, if they so decide, they can proceed. I shall say only that if they seek to remove that lapsed power from our anti-terrorist legislation, I do not think that I will be alone on the Opposition Benches in arguing as persuasively as possible that it would be a dreadful mistake. Tragically, the security position in Northern Ireland demands and justifies emergency provisions and the PTA. That is the reality, which the tabling of the order confirms.
I hope that the Secretary of State has fully grasped one dimension of the security situation in the Province, on which the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) commented. A security crisis looms in Northern Ireland today and there is a real danger that it could assume horrific proportions.
Demonstrably, since 1992—and probably some time before that—a key objective in the Provisionals' overall strategy has been the orchestration of confrontation between Unionists and the British state. The Orange Order marches provide the primary vehicle for achieving that, and all the signs suggest that they are succeeding. The crisis will be compounded if the Government unwittingly play into the hands of the Provisionals. With the height of the marching season approaching and tension in the Province rising, the RUC has a pivotal role to play, and the morale of the RUC is a vital consideration.

Mr. John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should the hon. Member not confine his remarks to the order that we are discussing?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The terms of the order are fairly narrow, concerning two specific organisations. Perhaps the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) will confine his remarks to that order.

Mr. Hunter: In recent weeks, the two organisations that have been proscribed today have been instrumental in creating disorder in Northern Ireland. My point is that it is through the marching season, and the marches in particular, that those who seek to disrupt order in Northern Ireland are working. That is my argument in support of proscription. I hope that the Secretary of State fully appreciates how dangerous the position is, and that he will find means to restore morale within the RUC.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): We have had a brief but constructive debate. I think it appropriate to acknowledge what all right hon. and hon. Members have said in condemnation of paramilitary violence and sectarianism, from whatever quarter it comes. It is clear that the House is unanimous in that condemnation.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) asked why we had not proscribed the organisations before. The decisions that we are making tonight must be based on reliable evidence relating to the organisations as a whole, rather than assertions, suspicions or even the conviction of individual members for criminal offences. The evidence available at any particular time has been kept under review, but it is now such that we believe that the Loyalist Volunteer Force and the Continuity Army Council are organisations which deserve proscription.
The right hon.Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made many telling points about other groups that have already been proscribed. He said that proscription of itself would not achieve the removal of those groups from the face of Northern Ireland society, and the evidence tells us just that. Clearly, the best and most effective proscription will occur when those groups listen to what all decent, right-thinking people want for Northern Ireland—when they respond to what the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want for their society.
The right hon. Gentleman also sought assurances that the Government, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, would seek to ensure that all sectors of this deeply divided community were dealt with sensitively. He made some telling points. I think that, overall, he recognised that that was indeed the way in which the Government and my right hon. Friend had proceeded during the weeks in which we have been in office, and that we would continue to proceed on the same basis.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly commented on the need for the new Dublin Government to adopt an even-handed approach to the position in Northern Ireland. We worked well with the last Dublin Government and we look forward to building a constructive and progressive relationship with the new Government and those who will speak for them in the peace talks. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept those assurances.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I had intended to speak in the debate, but, because of a mechanical problem, I was unable to do so. As I was rising to my feet, an hon. Member was entering the Chamber and I did not manage to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that, by convention, a lengthy intervention on the Minister's winding-up speech will be entertained.
I welcome the proposed order proscribing these two organisations. They are splinter groups—one, I understand, from the Combined Loyalist Military Command and the other from the IRA. However, it would be wrong to think, as I am sure the Minister will agree, that proscription is any sort of panacea for the type of activity in which those organisations engage.
One of the problems has been that democratic process attempts to come to terms with violent terrorism have not worked. It is clear that democracy cannot co-exist


with violent terrorism with political objectives. As I am sure the Minister will agree, the inevitable outcome of the over-exposure of democracy to terrorism is that democracy itself is first corrupted and is then capable of being subsumed by that terrorism.
Perhaps the Minister should be aware that the peace process policy, which was to some extent created by the previous Government, but which has been endorsed and subsequently adopted by the present Government, has itself brought about many of the problems that the Government have to deal with.
The Government will be attempting to deal with two particular objectives that are mutually exclusive. The first is the holding of a peace resolution conference with the plenipotentiaries of violent terrorism and the other is the bringing about of a negotiated stable political settlement in Northern Ireland. The more that the Government attempt to achieve the former, the less they make available the prospects of the latter. While they may help, perhaps more cosmetically than substantively, it would be foolish to think that they will make a great contribution to the elimination of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ingram: I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's points. Perhaps his last two strayed a little from the order. He said that proscription of itself would not achieve the desired end result. I made those very points at the start of my speech.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's name appeared on the annunciator during his intervention, which is most unusual. Perhaps new things are happening in Parliament—new Labour, new screens. We shall have to learn as we go along. However, I take on board the hon. and learned Gentleman's points, and I have no doubt that we shall return to them in later debates.
Before that intervention, I was replying to the speech of the right hon. Member for Devizes. I dealt with his comments about the need for sensitivity in the context of relationships throughout the Province's divided community. He also spoke about the new Government in Dublin. I am sure that we all want to see that Government work progressively towards the achievement of peace in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann spoke about the witness protection scheme. That goes beyond the thrust of what the order seeks to achieve. Obviously, we shall reflect on what he said. Perhaps if I write to him on dip detailed point, that will help him and other hon. Members.
The speech of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) was wide-ranging. We are debating the narrow issue of the proscription of two paramilitary organisations and, while it is not for me to say that any hon. Member strayed beyond the bounds of the order, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had to call the hon. Gentleman to order. He raised several issues, including the functioning of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, the Lloyd review and the Diplock courts. He made some constructive criticisms, but perhaps it is better to deal with the hon. Gentleman's specific points when we debate those aspects in terms of the Government's legislative programme. I am sure

that the hon. Gentleman will raise many of those issues again, when the House will be able to deal with them at greater length and on a more structured basis.
My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow—I apologise. Perhaps I have gone native in Northern Ireland and have forgotten my homeland of Scotland and its constituencies. I hope not. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) spoke about the disgraceful scenes in Harryville. Today, I took the opportunity to go through the town of Harryville and I saw the church that is being repaired as a result of the weekend's events. We must all condemn what is going on there. It is simply outrageous. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke about the way in which attempts are being made to stop people who are going about their lawful business or following their religious persuasions and attending church.
The speeches in the debate will contribute to a better understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland. My final point relates to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in opening the debate. Of itself, proscription cannot guarantee the prevention of terrorist acts, but it will make life harder for the terrorists.
For example, it will be illegal to solicit, invite or accept financial or other material support for the LVF or the CAC or knowingly to contribute to them. The order will make it illegal to solicit or invite membership of those organisations or to solicit or invite a person to carry out orders or directions given on behalf of the LVF or the CAC or requests made by a member of either of them.
It will also be illegal to arrange, manage or address a meeting knowing that it is to support those organisations or that it is to be addressed by a member of them. Finally, it will be illegal to dress in any way that arouses the reasonable apprehension that a person is a member of either of those organisations.
The effects that flow from the proscription of an organisation are not retrospective. Therefore, a person may be prosecuted for activities only if any of the above offences occur after the date of proscription. People know the purpose of the order, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (Amendment) Order 1997 (S. I., 1997, No. 1403), which was laid before this House on 3rd June, be approved.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 108 (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)),
That the Welsh Grand Committee shall meet in County Hall, Mold, on Monday 30th June at Eleven o'clock to take Questions pursuant to Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and to consider a Matter pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)), proceedings being interrupted at half-past Four o'clock.—[Mr. Graham Allen.]

Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 19th June, Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the Common Agricultural Policy, and the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on that Motion not later than three hours after their commencement.—[Mr. Graham Allen.]

Revenue Support Grant (Somerset)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham Allen.]

Mr. David Heath: This is a particularly timely debate in more ways than one. I am surprised to be addressing the House at such an early hour. As the Minister will appreciate, the debate is timely because of the announcement of the capping of Somerset county council a couple of weeks ago. It will come as no great surprise to him to hear me say that the capping announcement was a considerable disappointment to the many people I represent in Somerset and those in the wider county. They had hoped, perhaps in vain, for rather better from the new Government.
The county council will decide within the next week whether it wishes to appeal against that capping designation. I have a strong suspicion that it will decide that it will wish to appeal. If I am right, it will certainly have my support and that, I believe, of the other Members of Parliament representing Somerset. We will support the county council, because we believe that it has an extremely strong case.
That is not a surprising statement. All councils believe that they have a strong case to spend more. I have sat through enough meetings of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance and other consultative bodies to know that the arguments that go backwards and forwards between local and central Government tend to be a little stereotypical and to be rehearsed in detail each year, but I honestly believe that there are good reasons why Somerset's case merits close consideration.
The first is that there is no doubt that Somerset county council is extremely badly treated by the formulae. Remember that, this time around, Somerset was given a capping limit of 2 per cent., the lowest of all the county authorities. Remember also that the amount that Somerset county council has budgeted to spend in excess of that limit is marginal in its context—a further 1.2 per cent and a total of £3.6 million.
Secondly, the county council has an extraordinary record of efficiency and prudence in the way in which it conducts its business, and we can substantiate that. Thirdly, the areas in which that money is be spent are precisely those that the new Government claim are their priorities over coming years. The county council has made it clear that its interests and priorities are to protect frail and elderly people, to provide a proper education for our children and to maintain the safety of citizens in Somerset. Those are, I hope, aspirations that the Government share.
Let us deal with the formulae. Somerset is not a high-spending authority. There are no aspects of county spending to which people can point and say, "There is an authority that spends over the top on its services." They can say, of course, that Somerset spends more than its standard spending assessment allowances. Were that not true, the county would be in a parlous state. It spends £12 million more than the education SSA. Despite that, its education spending is still 4 per cent. below the Audit Commission family average. No one who has visited Somerset schools and who knows the Somerset education service would believe that Somerset is a high-spending authority in terms of education.
Why, then, is the SSA so inadequate? Technical issues need to be considered. They are based on sparsity factors and the rural nature of Somerset, which falls between all the measures that are reflected in the SSA. The SSA fails to reflect properly the growth not only in the population but in the clientele in the most important sectors—the number of children in school and the number of elderly persons and persons needing support from the social services departments.
Therefore, the SSA is at fault; and then we have the area cost adjustment. Were the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) here, I am sure that he would want to intervene at this point to say how important it is that the area cost adjustment be reviewed. He has consistently held that view from the moment that he ceased to be a Minister with responsibility for the environment.
Other factors, such as the landfill tax, weigh heavily on a county such as Somerset, which has no realistic alternatives because—again—of the sparsity of the population. It faces a substantial imposition in terms of the landfill tax, without the room within the capping formulae to provide.
Remember that a previous Government already considered an appeal against capping designation by Somerset in 1995–96 and, wonder of wonders, they agreed with us. Somerset is the only authority that has ever successfully gone through the cap and been granted every penny that it asked for. The formulae were clearly out of step with the county's needs. In that year, the council was granted an extra £2.6 million, which represented a 1 per cent. addition to its expenditure.
Let us consider the efficiency and effectiveness of the authority's education service. Somerset has the lowest administrative costs of any authority in the country—£9.29 per child; some authorities spend more than £120 per child. That is out of all proportion, and shows the level of the education service's effectiveness and efficiency. Somerset has the highest proportion of spending devolved to schools and, as I have mentioned, the highest spending above SSA of any county. It also has the lowest proportion of surplus places in primary schools. Given that we have many village schools and schools that are monopoly providers for the area they serve, that is a remarkable achievement.
The maximum amount of money that is provided from Government is going to our schools, yet our schools still suffer from underfunding. Class sizes have been steadily increasing. Last year, before the general election, I was the first Somerset education committee chairman in eight years to propose a budget that did not involve real-terms cuts, which is remarkable, but that depended on the county council being allowed to spend above the capping designation.
Social services are equally important. Somerset was one of the first counties to externalise its residential care service and it is the only one to have externalised domiciliary care. That may be right or it may be wrong, but what is absolutely certain is that the results are very low unit costs and very low management and support costs. That has just been checked by the Audit Commission and the social services inspectorate and it is demonstrably the case. Again, the fire service has among the lowest costs in the country, yet it is one of the most

efficient brigades in terms of its call-out response time. Expenditure on highways maintenance, which is among the lowest in the country, has now been put into education.
All that means that the county is operating extremely effectively. There is no spare money. There is no scope for using reserves, as some authorities might, because there are no reserves. There have been no reserves for many years. Few—one can never say never—further administrative savings can be made within the county. The results of cutting real-terms expenditure are cuts in the services that people in the county need.
Where, therefore, will the extra £3.4 million of expenditure go? Is it to be frittered away? Of course not. It is to go in the main to education—an extra £2 million. Here I must declare an interest. I have two children in a Somerset school. They will be affected by the proposals. They will certainly be affected if the Government impose the capping limit.
I have mentioned that class sizes have increased. In 1995, 24.9 per cent. of primary classes in the county contained more than 30 children; in 1997, the figure has gone up to 31.6 per cent. We are not crying wolf. Those are real affects in our schools. As I have said, this year, we have a standstill budget, but what if the designation is confirmed? It will mean 90 teachers will lose their jobs. How do the Government reconcile that with the priority of education, education, education? How would they find the extra £1 million that will then have to be spent on redundancies, to sack teachers, instead of paying for more teachers for a better education for our children?
The rest of the money totals £1.4 million, which is to go towards social services. Already, we have limited support in the county for carers. Already, domestic support to the frail and elderly has been cut. Already, the home care service has been cut. If the designation is confirmed, 125 places for elderly people in care homes will be lost and 50,000 hours of personal care for the frail and elderly will be lost. The child care team will also be cut.
No caring council would contemplate making such cuts, and I suggest that no caring Government would contemplate enforcing them. I know that the Minister is a caring man: I am sure that he will consider my comments and listen to the representations made to him. I hope that he will not take it the wrong way when I ask him not to recite the brief to which he referred in replying to a similar debate on Oxfordshire several weeks ago. Parts of that brief seemed a little stale: perhaps they predated the change of Government and were written by the same civil servants. Perhaps the policy was a left-over from the previous Government.
I hope that the Minister will consider the realities of Somerset and its case. I hope that he will remember that the rationale for capping is to protect the public from irresponsible authorities and from excessive council tax increases. Somerset has a very low council tax compared with those of neighbouring authorities. It is not an extravagant authority, and there are no easy alternatives to be taken.
Who is being protected? Last week, I asked the Minister in a written question how many representations he had received from people in Somerset complaining about their council tax bills this year. The answer was none: not a single person from Somerset has complained


about his or her council tax. However, many people have written to say that they do not want cuts in education, social services or the fire service.
The Conservatives assisted us in the last county council election by opposing going through the cap, thereby presenting a clear alternative to the people of Somerset. As a result, the Liberal Democrats won by a massive margin and the Conservatives made very little progress. Therefore, like the Government in this place, the Liberal Democrats have a mandate in Somerset.
I ask the Minister to consider matters of local accountability. The Government have just signed the charter of local self-government. Let the Minister prove that he believes in self-government by allowing local people the discretion to make local decisions about local services and what they are prepared to pay for them. That will not affect the departmental totals; it will affect the total spend, but, as far as I know, that has not been capped. It will not affect the Department's contribution to local authorities, but it will allow the county of Somerset to offer a fair deal to our children and our elderly.
I hope that the Minister's reply will not involve further reviews of sparsity, area cost adjustments and the SSA system. The children of Somerset cannot wait for those reviews to take place. It is a truism that children have only one chance at education. If the council is forced to sack teachers, it will have a devastating effect on the children in Somerset schools now—next year, the year after, some time or never will be too late for those children. The Minister has an opportunity to make a real difference to the services provided in Somerset. I urge him to seize that opportunity in responding to the debate and, more important, in responding to those representations that I fully expect him to receive from the county of Somerset in due course.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on his success in securing the Adjournment Debate this evening and on his powerful advocacy of his county council's case. He has put a strong and eloquent case, and I acknowledge his concern for the interests of his constituents and others in the county.
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that my reply will inevitably reiterate many of the points that I made to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) during last week's debate. We are considering broad principles concerning the operation of local government finance that apply equally to Somerset and Oxfordshire county councils.
First, I shall make some general points about the new relationship between central and local government. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned in his speech, last week we signed the Council of Europe's charter of local self-government. That is a clear pledge of the Government's commitment to forging a new and constructive partnership with local government at home. Local government has a central role to play in tackling the neglect and mistakes of the past 18 years.
We recognise, and believe in, the importance of local government as an independent democratic institution. We want to reinvigorate local government in ways that

encourage increased democracy, with local people having more say in the affairs of their council; increased autonomy, with more freedom for authorities to take their own decisions; increased accountability, with elected representatives being more visibly accountable for their actions; and increased partnership between central and local government and between local authorities and people, businesses and groups in their areas.
Within that framework, local authorities have important roles as commissioners and deliverers of a wide range of local services, of which education—which the hon. Gentleman described in considerable detail—housing and social services are often seen as the most important. Authorities are responsible for assessing service needs, balancing priorities, procuring delivery of services and providing them directly, monitoring standards, reviewing performance and acting on complaints.
However, local authorities are concerned with more than simply ensuring the delivery of high-quality services. We want to see local authorities develop their roles as leaders and champions of their areas: identifying local problems and areas of concern and developing strategies to address them; bringing groups, businesses and agencies together; and being the voice of local communities in dealing with Government, Europe, investors and other interests.
Local government is at the sharp end of the fight against deprivation. The Government will join local government in a concerted attack against the multiple causes of social and economic decline—social exclusion, unemployment, bad housing, crime, poor health and environmental problems. Good local government can play a key part in tackling those serious and deep-rooted problems.
Equally, we recognise that poor local government will stifle improvements not just directly in terms of the services that an authority provides, but by imposing an excessive cost burden on the community and creating a vacuum of community leadership. We therefore need to work with local government to ensure that people receive good-quality services from the whole of the public sector.
We also need to work together in developing our policies for local government. It is essential that we work together to create systems that work, and have detailed discussions about policy and implementation before we enact legislation. We want to forge close links with local government and related organisations that can make a real contribution. We want to see practical experience and knowledge brought to bear at the early, formative stages of policy development, and not left to the end of the process, when minds are made up and the scope for change is limited.
We have all had too much experience recently of central Government legislating in haste, and local government having to live with, and sort out, the problems that followed. We must now start to work together on future legislation. We must examine ways in which we can develop pilot studies on a wide range of issues including best value, a new approach to regeneration, community planning and partnerships with other agencies and democratic innovations.
We must—and intend to—work together to assess the scope of the new duty on local authorities to promote economic, social and environmental well-being in their areas, and on ways in which we can strengthen local


authorities' community leadership role, facilitate innovation, and encourage local partnerships in the delivery of services. Of course, we must work closely with local government in order to implement our manifesto commitments on local government finance.
As to this year's settlement, all public expenditure programmes must be examined rigorously each year, and local government spending—which accounts for a quarter of all public expenditure—is no exception. Decisions on local government spending must take account of the pressures on local authorities and of the scope for greater efficiency and effectiveness within those authorities.
As I have stressed on other occasions, we have inherited this year's local government spending plans and are clearly committed to retaining them. Although we are committed to reviewing the local government finance system in future years, for this year at least we must work within the current spending plans.

Mr. Tom King: rose—

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman has just entered the Chamber. He cannot expect me to give way when he has not heard the opening speech by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and has had little opportunity to listen to my comments. I have made it quite clear that we inherited the local government spending arrangements.

Mr. King: rose—

Mr. Raynsford: I have already said that I am not prepared to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who was not present for the speech by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.

Mr. King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that this debate is entitled to run until 10 pm? The fact that the Government's business has collapsed does not affect that, so I hope that the Minister will reflect on that fact. I want to make only a brief intervention and I had already asked the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) whether I could intervene. I happen to be a Somerset county Member. It would be unfortunate if the Minister, who is aware that the debate could continue until 10 pm, chooses not to allow me to make my brief intervention. I hope that he will feel able to accommodate me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Whether hon. Members give way is not a matter for the Chair—it is entirely a matter for the Minister.

Mr. Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have made it clear to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) that I am not giving way, and I shall explain why. He knows that this is a short debate and he is aware of the convention on Adjournment debates. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome had the courtesy to tell me, before the debate began, that he had received a request from the right hon. Gentleman to intervene. Had the right hon. Gentleman been in the Chamber for this debate, I would have been happy to

agree to that. However, he was not here. He did not have the courtesy to come to the Chamber and listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. Instead, he has come here 20 minutes after the start of the debate and expects to intervene, even though he has not listened to any of the comments of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and shows no interest in listening to what I have to say. I consider that to be a considerable discourtesy. The right hon. Gentleman, who has many years of experience in the House, should know better.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome introduced the debate in an intelligent, sensible and courteous way. He made a number of points about standard spending assessments. Since 1990–91, Somerset's overall SSA has increased broadly in line with the average increase for English authorities. For 1997–98, its SSA has increased by 1.9 per cent., which is only just below the average increase for shire counties and is well above the average 1.5 per cent. increase for English authorities as a whole.
The hon. Gentleman reasonably raised the question of the education SSA. He made a valid point, because Somerset's education SSA is relatively low compared with that of other counties—it is 33rd out of the 35 counties. It was an entirely proper point for him to make. However, what he did not say was that, on a number of other SSAs, Somerset does relatively well—for example, on highways maintenance it comes fourth out of the 35 counties, on other services 11 th, and on social services 15th. We acknowledge that the case he made on education is valid, but it is only a partial case that relates to only one service; it does not take account of the broad range.
The hon. Gentleman will understand that the framework for SSAs involves assessments of the need to spend under various headings. Those needs vary from authority to authority. Authorities will do well on some, but less well on others. That reflects the circumstances in their areas and the need for them to spend in relation to other authorities. That is why it is possible for an authority to score relatively low in relation to other authorities on some indicators, but to score relatively well on other indicators. That is the case with Somerset.

Mr. David Heath: I am sure that the Minister agrees that the education SSA and the revenue that derives from it is so large in comparison with the other services provided by a county council that, if the education SSA is wrongly assessed—especially to the degree that I think the hon. Gentleman almost recognised in his comments—that has an effect on every other service, as well as on the level of education that the county hopes to provide.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point. I have no doubt that, as and when the county seeks to make representations, that will be in the forefront of the issues raised. We shall listen carefully to any representations from the hon. Gentleman, his colleagues in the county council and others.
SSAs are the basis for the distribution of revenue support grant. They are based on measures of spending need that apply to all local authorities and they are discussed with representatives of local government. The SSAs for 1997–98 have been announced. As with total local government spending plans, we have said that they will not be revisited, and we do not propose to do so now.
Having said that, we are committed to a fair distribution of Government grant among authorities, and we believe that there is scope for improvement in the arrangements in future years. My colleagues and I shall look closely at the current SSA system. We shall listen to local government views on how SSAs might be improved, both for 1998–99 and in the longer term.
As the hon. Gentleman feels that the SSA system does not treat Somerset fairly, I should be happy to examine any proposals he has for different methods of calculation. However, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon last week, any system of this nature has to be universal, and any changes would need to apply to all authorities equally. When making any changes, we will, of course, want to be sure that they will produce a sounder assessment of needs.

Mr. Tom King: I want to apologise to the Minister for my earlier intervention. I am grateful to him for his courtesy in giving way now. He, too, is a long-serving Member, so he will understand that there is a problem when business collapses ahead of time. I merely wanted to point out that there is concern about the area cost adjustment. We made representations to the previous Government and a study was set up. Unfortunately, the basis on which it went forward led to an unhelpful result and we were then forced to ask for the study not to be implemented.
I apologise again to both the Minister and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome for my inadvertent discourtesy in not being here at the start of the debate. I would be grateful for advice on what work is being done. I hope that the Minister or his colleague, the Minister of State, will receive a delegation of Somerset Members of Parliament who wish to press the urgency for a fresh approach to the ACA formula, which is so important in determining the overall level of expenditure for Somerset.

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point and I am happy that I allowed him to intervene. My previous comments related solely to the way in which his earlier intervention arose. I recognise that he has represented the area for a long time and has been involved in the issue of area cost adjustment, which has produced some curious consequences. The issue is complex, like many other elements in the local government finance scheme. Many of us start off with high hopes of achieving significant improvements. We set out our proposals, only to find that the consequences are very complex and often not as helpful as we had hoped.
It is a difficult area. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about the need to re-examine the issue. If he and other hon. Members seek a meeting with either me or the Minister of State, we shall be glad to hear their representations.
With regard to capping, we again gave clear signals that, although we propose to replace in due course the current crude capping system, it would have to wait for future years. In the meantime, we said that we were proposing to follow the intentions of the previous Government for 1997–98. All authorities, including Somerset county council, knew that when setting their budgets.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said that there was disappointment in the county council at our decision. It may have been disappointed, but it cannot

have been surprised, because it was made clear that this year's local government framework was inherited and that the caps would apply.

Mr. David Rendel: I was present at the debate on Oxfordshire last week. I have heard the Minister's remarks so far tonight, although I am afraid that I did not hear all of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). The Minister has said once again that he is relying on the previous Government's plans in respect of both Somerset and Oxfordshire. There has been a strong indication from Conservative Members that, had they remained in government, they would have listened very carefully to representations made by Somerset and by Oxfordshire, and that they probably would have agreed with them. Will the Minister do the same?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman would be showing surprising naivety if he believed Conservative Members' protestations that they would act differently if they were still in government. It is very easy to repent after the event, and I am sceptical about such blandishments. The Government, however, will listen very carefully to the specific representations that we expect to receive from the counties of Somerset and—after last week's debate—Oxfordshire. We shall also do our best to accommodate sensible proposals for changes in the system that may help in future, and we shall listen to the authorities' case on this year's settlement.
Of 436 authorities, only three have set budgets that are significantly over their provisional capping limits. Our decision to designate those authorities demonstrates that we are taking our spending commitments seriously. We have also made it clear that, under our plans for replacing the current capping system in future, we shall retain reserve powers to control excessive council tax rises. Therefore, this year, all three authorities will be required to reduce their budgets unless they can demonstrate to us that they should not.
Under the capping legislation, capping principles apply to classes of authority, and we can consider an individual authority's detailed circumstances only if it budgets over cap. Somerset county council, having been through the process before, is well aware of that principle. The county was granted a capping concession on the previous occasion, in 1995–96—the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said that it was a unique achievement—when, after making its representations, it was granted a concession of £2.6 million. That concession led not only to relief in that financial year but to a permanent increase in the authority's base budget, from which it continues to benefit.
This year, Somerset was allowed to increase its budget by 2 per cent. On the information available, there is nothing to suggest that Somerset is in a tougher position than counties that have budgeted within cap. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made the point that, in his opinion, Somerset was allowed the smallest cap increase of any authority. I do not think that that is correct, however, because many other counties received a 2 per cent. increase, and many other local authorities received 1.5 per cent. Therefore, Somerset was not alone in its increase.
As I said, the Government do not believe that Somerset is in a tougher position than counties that budgeted within cap. Our proposed cap would still allow the county to


increase its budget by £5.58 million over its 1996 budget, when it fixed a budget that was within its cap. On the evidence that we have received to date, we think that that is a reasonable and achievable goal. As I said, however, we welcome and will listen carefully to any representations made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome or by Somerset county council.
Decisions on priorities between services is a matter for the authority itself. I accept entirely the importance that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome attaches to education, because the Government have a similar concern for education. I am sure that he will accept, however, that it would be wrong for central Government to say how it believes authorities should divide their spending, because that is a matter for local authorities. It is not for me to suggest where authorities should make any reductions if their cap is confirmed. Local authorities would quite reasonably object if we attempted to dictate in such a manner.
At this stage in the capping process, authorities can accept the caps that we have proposed. When that happens, the cap limit is set by notice, and the authority can immediately set a revised lower budget and recalculate its council tax. Obviously, sending new bills will impose an extra administrative burden, the expense of which will have to be met from within the authority's revised budget. Such expense is a result of the authority's decision to breach the provisional cap, and all authorities are aware of those implications.

Mr. Norman Baker: Does the Minister realise that many Members will find his answer slightly depressing? He and the Labour party were elected to government, by a quite substantial margin, with a mandate for a fresh start. Furthermore, a part of the Labour manifesto dealt with a brand new start with local government, which, for the past 18 years, has been held in a stranglehold. Controls over most of UK local government—unlike controls over most local governments in Europe—have been excessive.
Does the Minister also realise that the local government elections, which were held on 1 May, also comprehensively rejected the Conservatives? The mandate at both national and local level, therefore, is to pursue a policy opposite to that pursued by the previous Government. I therefore do not understand why the Minister is pursuing a Conservative party policy. How can he be so attracted to capping when capping is anathema

to equality between local and central Government, and by what right does he feel that he and other Ministers can override the wishes of the electorate and of individual county and district councils? The electorate voted for one policy, but a different policy is being imposed by the Government.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to my speech. I made it absolutely clear that the Government are committed to a new relationship with local authorities and to dealing with many of the problems that he and other Opposition Members have highlighted. I have also made it clear that we inherited a financial settlement that came into operation a month before we were elected. We have made it quite clear that, this year, we shall be working within that financial framework. It would not be possible to make such a commitment to the electorate and then to renege on it without being subjected to criticism of being a party that does not honour its pledges to the electorate.
The Government clearly stated what we would do—that we would work within the financial framework that we inherited—and we are doing it. We are, however, simultaneously examining ways in which we can improve relationships between local and central Government and improve local government's future financial framework. We shall improve those relationships and that framework.
Should Somerset wish to challenge its cap, it will have 28 days from the date of designation—until 18 June—to propose an alternative amount and to provide its reasons for doing so. The authority will not only be able to submit its written case, but will have an opportunity to meet me or one of my colleagues to make its case directly. A meeting has provisionally been arranged—for 26 June 1997—with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who has responsibility for housing and local government. We shall consider all the relevant points, including those made in this debate, before reaching our final decision.
Final caps will be stated in an order, which is, of course, subject to approval by the House. Once that process is complete, we shall notify the authority of its maximum permitted budget. If a budget reduction is confirmed, the authority would have 21 days in which to calculate a substitute budget requirement. It would then, of course, have to set a reduced council tax.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Seven o'clock.